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

Question No. 399—
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the government’s proposal to buy-back firearms from Canadians: (a) which department or agency will be responsible for (i) collecting the firearms, (ii) storing the firearms, (iii) destroying or deactivating the firearms; (b) which department or agency will be responsible for financially reimbursing Canadians; (c) how will Canadians receive the funds for their firearms; (d) how long will Canadians have to wait from surrendering their firearm until they are reimbursed; (e) which law enforcement agencies will be involved in the program; (f) what amount will be paid for each firearm, broken down by type and model; and (g) how was the amount being paid for each type and model of firearm determined?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to bringing forward a buyback program in early 2023 that offers fair compensation to affected owners and businesses while making sure implementation and management are done in a safe and cost-effective manner. This commitment was reaffirmed in the November 2021 Speech from the Throne and the most recent mandate letter for the Minister of Public Safety. Government officials are currently in the process of refining requirements and developing program and implementation options for cabinet consideration.
The government is equally committed to providing parliamentarians and Canadians with information on the design of the buyback program, including collection and transportation, processing facility, compensation, and destruction or deactivation, as it becomes available.

Question No. 400—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to funding applications received by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency since October 1, 2021: what are the details of each application, including the (i) name of the applicant, (ii) program under which the funding application was made, (iii) type of funding requested (loan, grant, etc.), (iv) date the application was received, (v) current status of the application, (vi) amount of funding approved, if applicable, (vii) location of the applicant, (viii) project description or the purpose of the funding?
Response
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is concerned, with regard to funding applications received from October 1, 2021 to March 17, 2022, the requested information is available on the Government of Canada’s Open Government portal at the following link: https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/.

Question No. 403—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to Access to Information requests received by federal departments and agencies: (a) for each department and agency, how many requests were received in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021; (b) for each department and agency in (a), how many requests were resolved in each year; (c) for each department and agency in (a), what was the median processing time for requests resolved in those years; (d) for each department and agency in (a), by how much has the median processing time for requests increased since 2019; and (e) for each department and agency in (a), by how much has the backlog of outstanding requests increased since 2019?
Response
Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, each fiscal year, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, TBS, collects data on the number of requests received, completed, closed, outstanding, carried over and responded to according to legislative timelines (30 days), and extensions taken, broken down by length of time taken (30 days or less, 31 to 60 days, 61 to 120 days, 121 to 180 days, 181 to 365 days or more than 365 days), as well as the amount of time required to close requests (0 to 30 days, 31 to 60 days, 61 to 120 days, or 121 days or more).
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 and compared from year to year based on the published datasets.
Institutions also individually report this information to Parliament in their annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, which institutions table in Parliament and publish online each fall. The latest available data is for fiscal year 2020-21 (April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021). Data for fiscal year 2021-22 is expected to be collected by the end of September 2022 and published by December 31, 2022.

Question No. 408—
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron:
With regard to Canada’s representation abroad: (a) why are there no Canadian embassies in Nepal and Armenia, and are there any plans to open one in the near future; (b) why is there currently no Canadian ambassador to France, and are there any plans to appoint one in the near future; and (c) why is there no Canadian ambassador to China since the resignation of the previous one, and are there any plans to appoint one?
Response
Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, Canada’s bilateral relations with Nepal are supported through the High Commission of Canada in New Delhi and the Consulate of Canada in Nepal. Canada’s high commissioner to India is also accredited as Canada’s ambassador to Nepal and regularly visits Nepal to advance a range of issues in the bilateral relationship, including diplomatic, trade and development issues. The Consulate of Canada in Nepal, with the support of Canada’s honorary consul to Nepal, provides emergency consular services to Canadians in Nepal. Canadian funding to Nepal through both bilateral and multilateral channels averaged $39.7 million per year between 2014 and 2020. During the pandemic, Canada has also provided significant COVID-19 assistance to Nepal through multilateral channels and through the direct delivery of critical medical supplies from Canada’s national emergency strategic stockpile to Kathmandu in June 2021.
The Government of Canada manages its bilateral relations with Armenia through its embassy in Moscow, with Alison LeClaire serving as Canada’s ambassador to Armenia. The embassy has continued to foster strong ties with Armenia, including through regular visits to Yerevan, which have continued despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Canada continues to strengthen its ties with Armenia through a variety of ways, such as the mission undertaken by Special Envoy to the European Union and Europe Stéphane Dion to explore options for Canada to better support Armenian democracy. Building on the joint work of recent years and long-standing people-to-people ties, Special Envoy Dion recently conducted a visit in Armenia and examined options as to how Canada can encourage the ongoing efforts of Armenian civil society, strengthen democratic institutions, grow Armenia’s engagement with multilateral institutions, and promote inclusive economic growth. The Government of Canada is also in the process of appointing a new honorary consul in Armenia.
In response to parts (b) and (c) of the question, announcements regarding the appointment of ambassadors to France and China will be made in due course.

Question No. 411—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the National Emergency Strategic Stockpile and potassium iodide pills: (a) what is the number of potassium iodide pills that Canada possesses; (b) how many of the pills are reserved or designated for (i) military personnel, (ii) medical personnel, (iii) public office holders, (iv) emergency services; (c) how many pills are expired; (d) when was the last time the pills were purchased and how many were purchased at that time; (e) on what date do the most recently purchased pills expire; (f) how many pills have been distributed to each warehouse, broken down by location; and (g) what is the government’s plan for how the pills are to be distributed in the event of an emergency?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the national emergency strategic Stockpile, or NESS, is a part of the national emergency management critical infrastructure. As such, information on NESS warehouse locations and details on holdings are not released due to security implications.
With regard to the NESS and potassium iodide pills, in response to parts (a) and (e) of the question, the NESS does not disclose specific details of its medical countermeasures for security reasons. In response to part (b), the NESS does not reserve or designate potassium iodide pills by category of user. In response to part (c), the NESS does not hold any expired potassium iodide pills. In response to part (d), potassium iodide was most recently purchased in 2022, and the NESS does not disclose specific details of its medical countermeasures for security reasons. In response to part (f), the NESS does not disclose locations of its warehouses for security reasons. In response to part (g), the provision of medical care, including the medical response to a nuclear emergency, primarily falls under provincial/territorial, or P/T jurisdiction. If local and P/T supplies are exhausted, potassium iodide can be made available to P/T authorities for use in their response to a nuclear emergency upon request by the appropriate medical or public health authorities.

Question No. 413—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to emergency preparedness for Canadians living within 100 km of a nuclear facility: (a) what are the government's instructions for (i) individual homeowners, (ii) apartment dwellers, (iii) schools, (iv) businesses, (v) hospitals, (vi) seniors' residences, (vii) long-term care facilities, (viii) military installations; and (b) where are each of the instructions mentioned in (a) published?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, provincial and territorial governments have the primary responsibility for managing emergencies within their respective jurisdictions. Any instructions given to Canadians within 100 kilometres of a nuclear power plant would be based on the relevant province’s emergency plans and the particular situation. Provincial responsibilities include public alerting and providing instructions to homeowners, apartment dwellers, schools, businesses, hospitals, seniors’ residences and long-term care facilities on protective action, which may include evacuation, sheltering and/or the use of potassium iodide, KI, for iodine thyroid blocking, or ITB, and ingestion controls. While military installations and indigenous lands fall within federal jurisdiction, individuals would be instructed to follow the instructions provided by provincial health authorities in an emergency.
Provinces with nuclear power plants have provincial nuclear emergency plans, which detail the preparedness and response actions of the province in the event of a nuclear emergency. New Brunswick’s provincial health nuclear emergency plan for the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station can be consulted at https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/h-s/pdf/en/Publications/ProvincialHealthNuclearEmergencyPlan.pdf, and its Point Lepreau nuclear off-site emergency plan is found at https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ps-sp/pdf/emo/Nuclear/PointLepreau-NOEM.pdf, while the provincial nuclear emergency response plan, PNERP, for the nuclear power plants in Ontario is found at https://www.ontario.ca/document/provincial-nuclear-emergency-response-plan-pnerp-master-plan.
At the federal level, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC, is responsible, among other things, for maintaining regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants. Regulatory requirements placed on the licensee include robust emergency plans for the plant, a public education program for the local population about the plant and what to do in an emergency, and a requirement for the pre-distribution of KI for the population around a nuclear power plant.
Public Safety Canada maintains the federal emergency response plan, FERP, and is responsible for overall federal coordination on behalf of the Government of Canada in the event of a nuclear emergency requiring a coordinated Government of Canada response. The plan is found at https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mrgnc-rspns-pln/index-en.aspx
Health Canada leads the federal nuclear emergency plan, FNEP, which is an annex to the FERP and coordinates scientific and technical support from 18 federal departments for a whole-of-government response to a nuclear emergency. It can be consulted at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-risks-safety/federal-nuclear-emergency-master-plan-part-1.html
In addition to the FNEP, Health Canada has published guidance documents to assist provincial authorities in developing protection strategies for nuclear emergencies, to help inform the instructions referenced above. Guidance documents include “Generic Criteria and Operational Intervention Levels for Nuclear Emergency Planning and Response”, found online at https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.855963/publication.html, and “Guidance on Planning for Recovery Following a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency”, at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-risks-safety/planning-recovery-nuclear-emergency.html.
Health Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians by strengthening nuclear emergency preparedness in Canada and providing guidance, support and recommendations based on the scientific and technical resources of the Government of Canada.
Health Canada works closely with partners across all jurisdictions to test nuclear emergency plans through regular exercises and other reviews as part of an ongoing effort to ensure readiness for a nuclear emergency in Canada or abroad.
Recent exercises in Ontario, with Exercise Unified Command, and New Brunswick, with Synergy Challenge, have shown that all jurisdictions and the nuclear operators are prepared to respond to a nuclear emergency in Canada. More details on Synergy Challenge can be found at https://www.nbpower.com/en/safety/nuclear-safety/synergy-challenge-2021
In 2019, Canada hosted an international peer review of its nuclear emergency preparedness. The review report concluded that Canada had a well-developed and mature nuclear emergency preparedness and response system in place across all levels of government. The report is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks-safety/radiation/radiological-nuclear-emergencies/how-canada-prepares/international-atomic-energy-agency-emergency-preparedness-review-mission-canada-june-2019.html

Question No. 414—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces' (CAF) exercises for assistance to civilian protection of Canada's nuclear sites: (a) what is the date of the last exercise, broken down by each regiment or base; and (b) what number of currently active CAF personnel are available or can be made available to protect Canada's nuclear sites?
Response
Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Public Safety is the lead coordinating body for the Government of Canada’s overall response to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear incidents. The Canadian Armed Forces is responsible for providing support to domestic operations, including chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear incidents, with military expertise, intelligence, and scientific support.
In response to parts (a) and (b), the Canadian Armed Forces remains prepared to respond to requests from the government, and to assist other government departments and law enforcement agencies. This includes supporting and participating in exercises initiated by other government departments and external nuclear industry stakeholders, as well as under the auspices of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD.
Under the auspices of NORAD, the Canadian Armed Forces participates in Operation Noble Eagle, which is an ongoing operation designed to monitor and protect continental airspace. Under this NORAD operation, the Royal Canadian Air Force stands ready to deter and defend against air attacks on critical infrastructure, including nuclear power plants. Operation Noble Eagle processes are exercised, typically on a monthly basis, with Canadian civil authorities.
Additionally, the Canadian Armed Forces participates in the annual NORAD-sponsored exercise Vigilant Shield, which enhances readiness to protect critical infrastructure against air threats, including nuclear facilities.
In terms of civilian-led exercises, the Canadian Armed Forces participated in the exercise Synergy Challenge 2021. The exercise was hosted by New Brunswick Power on October 6-7, 2021. The exercise focused on responding to a hypothetical incident at the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. The Canadian Joint Operations Command, Joint Task Force Atlantic area, and 403 Squadron from Canadian Forces Base Gagetown provided support to this exercise.
Ultimately, the Canadian Armed Forces stands ready to support the protection of Canada’s nuclear sites at the request of the federal government.

Question No. 415—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to action by the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change to prevent eco-terrorism in Canada, since being sworn in as minister: (a) what specific measures, if any, has the minister done to prevent eco-terrorism in Canada; (b) has the minister publicly called for individuals and organizations to refrain from participating in such activity, and, (i) if not, why not, (ii) if so, what are the details; and (c) has the minister been provided with any documents showing the dangers or economic damage caused by eco-terrorism or the threat of eco-terrorism, and, if so, what are the details of all such documents, including the (i) date they were provided to the minister, (ii) sender, (iii) title, (iv) summary of the contents, (v) file number, (vi) type of document?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change denounces the use or threat of violence to achieve personal or societal goals. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants everyone the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. The Government of Canada supports the peaceful and lawful expression of these rights.
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is the lead for overall counter-terrorism planning, preparedness and response within the Government of Canada.

Question No. 416—
Mr. Gerald Soroka:
With regard to legal costs incurred by the government in relation to the invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, as well as any subsequent legal action: what is the total amount (i) paid out to date, (ii) scheduled to be paid out, on outside legal counsel, broken down by department, agency or other government entity which encountered the expense?
Response
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no legal expenses were incurred by the government for outside legal counsel on work related to the invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, as well as any subsequent legal action.
There have been no costs paid, or scheduled to be paid, to outside legal counsel.
All advisory and litigation services provided in relation to the invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, as well as any subsequent legal action, have been provided internally.

Question No. 421—
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to hospitality events hosted by Canadian embassies, consulates or missions abroad, since January 1, 2019: (a) how many events were hosted by each embassy, consulate, or mission, broken down by location, and by month; (b) what was the total amount spent on hospitality each month, broken down by location; and (c) what are the details of all events which were attended by more than 20 people, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) number of attendees, (iv) event description or the purpose of the event, (v) total expenditures related to the event?
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. The department manages an extensive network of 178 missions in 110 countries, which host hospitality events that are necessary for the effective conduct of government business and for courtesy, diplomacy or protocol purposes.
In response to the questions, 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 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. 422—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the agreement made between the Prime Minister and the leader of the New Democratic Party which was announced on March 22, 2022: what is the estimated cost to implement the items contained in the agreement, broken down by each item?
Response
Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their politicians to come together and get to work to help make their lives better. The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party have agreed to improve the way we approach politics over the next three years for the benefit of Canadians. The parties have identified key policy areas where there is a desire for a similar medium-term outcome.
This work will be focused on growing our economy by creating green jobs that fight the climate crisis, making people’s lives more affordable with housing and childcare, and expanding and protecting our healthcare. As the basis for this work, it is fundamental for the parties to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Both parties hope that by approaching this Parliament more collaboratively, we will be able to deliver on these shared policy objectives before the next election.
Both parties believe strongly in Parliament’s role to hold the government to account. Nothing in this agreement will undermine that critical function. The parties will not always agree, and they will continue to seek to work with other parties in Parliament on the priorities that are the subject of this agreement and for other objectives. This agreement is about ensuring those differences do not stand in the way of delivering on shared goals for the benefit of each and every Canadian.

Question No. 423—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the government's response to question Q-302 concerning the timeline for when a decision on whether or not to ban Huawei from Canada's 5G infrastructure will take place and the reference in the response to "appropriate deliberations": (a) why has it taken more than five years for the government to conclude the "appropriate deliberations" related to Huawei; (b) how many times, if any, has the government deliberated about Huawei over the past five years; (c) on what days did the deliberations in (b) take place, and who participated in each deliberation; and (d) why did the government not fulfill its commitment from May 1, 2019, that a decision on Huawei would take place before the 2019 general election?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government takes the security of Canada’s telecommunications infrastructure very seriously. In order to protect the integrity of the process and to enable decision-makers to have frank discussions, the answers to these questions are subject to cabinet confidence.

Question No. 425—
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the Federal Ministerial Coordinating Committee on PEI Potatoes: (a) what are the (i) dates, (ii) locations, (iii) ministers in attendance, for each meeting of the committee which have occurred since January 26, 2022; and (b) what was accomplished, if anything, at each meeting in (a)?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, since January 26, 2022, the committee has met once, on February 2, 2022, via video conference. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence were in attendance.
In response to part (b) of the question, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, and Ambassador Hillman provided a debrief of their visit to Washington and next steps, and that was followed by a discussion on communications and stakeholder management. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Deputy Minister Forbes provided an update on producer support and assistance and the implications of the ministerial order for Canadian processors.
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)

Question No. 357—
Ms. Louise Chabot:
With regard to the Cannabis Act: (a) what are the details of the consultations that Health Canada conducted on the production of cannabis for medical purposes, including the (i) guidelines, (ii) results and analyses, (iii) briefing notes; and (b) what are the details of the review of the Cannabis Act, including the (i) findings of the statutory review by the minister responsible that was to be conducted no later than October 17, 2021, (ii) briefing notes?
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), from March 8 to May 7, 2021, Health Canada consulted Canadians on a draft guidance document on factors the department may consider when using the authorities provided by the cannabis regulations to refuse, renew, amend or revoke a registration for personal and designated production of cannabis for medical purposes.
The consultation has since concluded. Health Canada received 677 responses to the consultation through an online questionnaire or email. The department is analyzing the feedback and is currently preparing a report that summarizes the consultation comments and a final version of the guidance document, both of which will be published on the Health Canada website.
Section 151.1 of the Cannabis Act requires that the minister of health cause a review of the act and its administration and operation three years after coming into force (i.e., after October 17, 2021), and that a report, including any findings or recommendations resulting from the review, be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 18 months.
In response to (b)(i), as set out in the legislation, the legislative review must study the impact of the act on public health. In particular, it must look at the impact on the health and consumption habits of young persons with respect to cannabis use, the impact of cannabis on indigenous persons and communities, and the impact of the cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house.
The government is committed to putting into place a credible, evidence-driven process for the legislative review, which will assess the progress made towards achieving the objectives of the act. Preparations are under way for the launch of the review.
In response to (b)(ii), briefing note 21-111407-100 M2M, “Preparations for the Cannabis Act Legislative Review”, can be consulted for further detail.

Question No. 361—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the freezing of bank accounts in relation to the Emergency Economic Measures Order SOR/2022-22: (a) what specific criteria were used to determine whose bank accounts were frozen; (b) were any measures in place to ensure that family members and relatives of individuals involved in the protest did not have their accounts frozen just because of who their spouse or family members are, and, if so, what are the details of these measures; and (c) what specific measures are in place to ensure that individuals who financially supported the protests before the government declared the protests to be illegal do not have their bank accounts frozen for supporting a legal protest?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), financial service providers were responsible for implementing the measures contained in the emergency economic measures order, including ceasing to provide financial services to persons who were directly or indirectly engaged in activities that were prohibited by the emergency measures regulations.
Neither the order nor the regulations required financial service providers to inform the Department of Finance or any other federal department or agency of the specific criteria they used to determine whose bank accounts were frozen.
The RCMP issued a statement indicating that while it remained the responsibility of the financial institutions to make the decision to freeze accounts, the RCMP was diligently working with law enforcement and federal partners to disclose relevant information of individuals and companies suspected of involvement in illegal acts. The list that was provided to financial institutions included identities of individuals who were influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa, and owners and/or drivers of vehicles who did not want to leave the area impacted by the protest.
In response to (b), the emergency economic measures order required financial service providers to cease providing financial services to persons who were directly or indirectly engaged in activities that were prohibited by the emergency measures regulations.
This requirement did not extend to the family members and relatives of such persons, provided that those family members and relatives were not themselves directly or indirectly engaging in prohibited activities.
In response to (c), the emergency measures regulations and the emergency economic measures order were not retroactive. They were effective only between February 15 and February 23.
The RCMP issued a statement indicating that the list it had provided to financial institutions focused on individuals who were influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa and owners and/or drivers of vehicles who did not want to leave the area impacted by the protest; and that it did not provide a list of donors to financial institutions.

Question No. 362—
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to information provided to the Minister of Public Safety, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022: (a) what are the details of all information which was provided to the minister related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including any rules of engagement contained in the information; and (b) what are the details of all the information which was provided to the minister related to the authorization of force, both lethal and non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including what was known or decided related to the authorization of force?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the operations of all police are fully independent, whether they be municipal, provincial, or federal.
This police independence is critical. The government may not attempt to influence an investigation in any way, or direct the conduct of specific police operations. Police independence, as qualified in a 1999 Supreme Court decision, Campbell and Shirose, was described as follows:
“While for certain purposes the commissioner of the RCMP reports to the solicitor general (now known as the public safety minister), the commissioner is not to be considered a servant or agent of the government while engaged in a criminal investigation. The commissioner is not subject to political direction. Like every other police officer similarly engaged, he is answerable to the law and, no doubt, to his conscience.”
Our government remains committed to ensuring that law enforcement officers have the resources they need to do their jobs and effectively address threats to public safety after years of cuts from the previous Conservative government.
From the outset, our government was focused on finding solutions that protected Canadians and affected communities and ensured the minimum risk of harm. This included consulting with officials and thoroughly assessing all federal tools and resources, including the possibility of invoking the Emergencies Act. The temporary authorities provided through the act remained in place only for the short time required to address this urgent risk to Canadians’ safety.
With regard to information provided to the Minister of Public Safety, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022, in response to (a), no information was provided to the minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.
In response to (b), no information was provided to the minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the authorization of force, either lethal or non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.

Question No. 363—
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to information provided to the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022: (a) what are the details of all the information which was provided to the minister related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including any rules of engagement contained in the information; and (b) what are the details of all the information which was provided to the minister related to the authorization of force, both lethal and non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including what was known or decided related to the authorization of force?
Response
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the operations of all police are fully independent, whether they be municipal, provincial, or federal.
This police independence is critical. The government may not attempt to influence in any way an investigation, or direct the conduct of specific police operations. Police independence, as qualified in a 1999 Supreme Court decision, Campbell and Shirose, was described as follows:
“While for certain purposes the commissioner of the RCMP reports to the solicitor general (now known as the public safety minister), the commissioner is not to be considered a servant or agent of the government while engaged in a criminal investigation. The commissioner is not subject to political direction. Like every other police officer similarly engaged, he is answerable to the law and, no doubt, to his conscience.”
Our government remains committed to ensuring that law enforcement officers have the resources they need to do their jobs and effectively address threats to public safety after years of cuts from the previous Conservative government.
From the outset our government was focused on finding solutions that protected Canadians and affected communities and ensured the minimum risk of harm. This included consulting with officials and thoroughly assessing all federal tools and resources, including the possibility of invoking the Emergencies Act. The temporary authorities provided through the act remained in place only for the short time required to address this urgent risk to Canadians’ safety.
With regard to information provided to the Minister of Public Safety, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022, in response to (a), no information was provided to the minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.
In response to (b), no information was provided to the minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the authorization of force, either lethal or non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.

Question No. 364—
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the information provided to the Prime Minister, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022: (a) what are the details of all the information which was provided to the Prime Minister related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including any rules of engagement contained in the information; and (b) what are the details of all the information which was provided to the Prime Minister related to the authorization of force, both lethal and non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including what was known or decided related to the authorization of force?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the operations of all police are fully independent, whether they be municipal, provincial, or federal.
This police independence is critical. The government may not attempt to influence an investigation in any way, or direct the conduct of specific police operations. Police independence, as qualified in a 1999 Supreme Court decision, Campbell and Shirose, was described as follows:
“While for certain purposes the commissioner of the RCMP reports to the solicitor general (now known as the public safety minister), the commissioner is not to be considered a servant or agent of the government while engaged in a criminal investigation. The commissioner is not subject to political direction. Like every other police officer similarly engaged, he is answerable to the law and, no doubt, to his conscience.”
Our government remains committed to ensuring that law enforcement officers have the resources they need to do their jobs and effectively address threats to public safety after years of cuts from the previous Conservative government.
From the outset, our government was focused on finding solutions that protected Canadians and affected communities and ensured the minimum risk of harm. This included consulting with officials and thoroughly assessing all federal tools and resources, including the possibility of invoking the Emergencies Act. The temporary authorities provided through the act remained in place only for the short time required to address this urgent risk to Canadians’ safety.
In response to (a), with regard to information provided to the Prime Minister, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022, no information was provided to the Prime Minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.
In response to (b), with regard to information provided to the Prime Minister, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022, no information was provided to the Prime Minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the authorization of force, either lethal or non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.

Question No. 365—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the Emergency Economic Measures Order: (a) which entities made a disclosure to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, under section 5, and, with respect to each entity, how many disclosures were made, broken down by (i) existence of property, under paragraph 5(a), (ii) transactions or proposed transactions, under paragraph 5(b); (b) which entities made a disclosure to the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, under section 5, and, with respect to each entity, how many disclosures were made, broken down by (i)existence of property, under paragraph 5(a), (ii) transactions or proposed transactions, under paragraph 5(b); (c) which institutions of the Government of Canada made a disclosure, under section 6, broken down by (i) institution making the disclosure, (ii) entity to which the disclosure was made, (iii) the nature of the information disclosed; and (d) were any charges laid in relation to breaches of the order and, if so, who was charged and for what offences?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), as per section 5 of the order, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, received disclosures from the following: banks established under Canada's Bank Act and regulated by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI; co-operative credit societies, savings and credit unions and caisses populaires regulated by a provincial act and associations regulated by the Cooperative Credit Associations Act; entities authorized under provincial legislation to engage in the business of dealing in securities or to provide portfolio management or investment counselling services; and entities that perform any of the following payment functions: the provision or maintenance of an account that, in relation to an electronic funds transfer, is held on behalf of one or more end users; the holding of funds on behalf of an end user until they are withdrawn by the end user or transferred to another individual or entity; the initiation of an electronic funds transfer at the request of an end user; the authorization of an electronic funds transfer or the transmission, reception or facilitation of an instruction in relation to an electronic funds transfer, or the provision of clearing or settlement services.
In response to (a)(i) and (ii), the RCMP received information from a number of entities described in section 5 (a) and (b) of the order disclosed to the RCMP. This information was developed by those entities in a dynamic environment and, given the short period of time the Emergencies Act was in place, the information was received in an ad hoc manner, with no formal reporting mechanism established. As such, the information in the RCMP holdings may differ from information in other Government of Canada records, or numbers publicly disclosed by entities listed in part (a). The RCMP is currently evaluating information related to the invocation of the order and the mandated reporting. It would be premature to share preliminary data or additional information at this time, while analysis is ongoing to ensure accurate and fulsome reporting from the RCMP. The RCMP is committed to participating in the review of the Emergencies Act required by statute, and to ensuring that an authoritative common understanding of how the act was utilized is available.
In response to (b), given its mandate and specific operational requirements, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, does not generally disclose details related to operational activity.
In response to (c)(i), the RCMP made disclosures under section 6. The RCMP cannot provide information on other Government of Canada institutions’ disclosures.
In response to (c)(ii), the RCMP made disclosures to banks, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, the Canadian Securities Administrators, the Mutual Funds Dealers Association and credit unions.
In response to (c)(iii), the RCMP disclosed information on 57 entities, broken down into 18 individuals and 39 vehicles. As well, the RCMP identified and disseminated 170 Bitcoin wallet addresses as receiving funds linked to the HonkHonk Hodl crowdfunding campaign.
In response to (d), as there was no criminal enforcement mechanism under the emergency economic measures order, the RCMP did not lay any charges under the order.

Question No. 367—
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the events on February 17, 2022, near Houston, British Columbia, described by the Royal Canada Mounted Police as "a violent confrontation with employees of Coastal Gaslink", which also included a road blockade: (a) does the Marten Forest Service Road and the Coastal GasLink location near it meet the meaning of "infrastructure for the supply of utilities such as ... gas", for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of "critical infrastructure" in section 1 of the Emergency Measures Regulations; (b) what are the details of the actions taken under the Emergency Measures Regulations to prevent, mitigate or respond to these acts or, if none, why were none taken; and (c) what are the details of the actions taken under the Emergency Economic Measures Order to prevent, mitigate or respond to these acts or, if none, why were none taken?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the RCMP considers that the Costal GasLink drill site would have met the definition of critical infrastructure set out in section 1 of the emergency measures regulations while they were in force, as a place or land on which infrastructure for the supply of utilities such as gas are located.
In response to part (b), no actions were taken under the emergency measures regulations to prevent, mitigate or respond to these acts. Existing authorities were sufficient. Given that an investigation is ongoing into the events, the RCMP will not comment further on this matter at this time.
In response to part (c), no actions were taken under the emergency economic measures order to prevent, mitigate or respond to these acts. Existing authorities were sufficient. Given that an investigation is ongoing into the events, the RCMP will not comment further on this matter at this time.

Question No. 370—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the Canada Pension Plan's (CPP) investments in Russian state owned enterprises, or enterprises with significant ties to Vladimir Putin or the Russian oligarchy: (a) what enterprises are currently owned by the CPP, and what is the value of each investment; (b) has the government directed or advised the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) to divest such holdings, and, if so, what are the details including the date of the direction or advice; and (c) does the CPPIB have plans to eliminate all such holdings from their investment portfolio, and, if so, when will these holdings be eliminated?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CPPIB was set up by the federal, provincial and territorial governments to prudently invest surplus Canada pension plan funds. The CPPIB operates at arm’s length from Canadian governments.
Under current legislation and regulations, the government is not able to require the CPPIB to disclose its holdings in addition to the disclosure requirements to which CPPIB is subject under the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. Federal and provincial governments also do not have the authority to cause the CPPIB to divest any holdings.

Question No. 371—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the long term impact of using the Emergencies Act to freeze bank accounts of canadian citizens: has the Canada Deposit Insurance Company, the Bank of Canada, or the Department of Finance conducted any analysis on the potential impact of this measure on the long-term stability of Canadian banks, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings of the analysis?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the emergency economic measures order was in effect for only a short period of time, and it only targeted designated persons participating in the illegal blockades and occupations. As at February 21, 2022, we are aware of enforcement action taken by the RCMP under the emergency economic measures order that resulted in the freezing of approximately 280 financial products, e.g., savings and chequing accounts, credit cards and lines of credit, for a total of approximately $7,900,000, including $3,800,000 from a payment processor.
Moreover, there is a statutory obligation pursuant to the access to basic banking regulations for banks to open retail deposit accounts for consumers. Therefore, banks must continue to open retail deposit accounts for any consumer subject to the exceptions in the regulations.
With regard to the Bank of Canada, a search of the records of the Bank of Canada did not produce any results.
With regard to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, CDIC, a search of the records of the CDIC did not produce any results.

Question No. 374—
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for federal public servants: (a) how many employees of the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario (FedNor) have been placed on administrative leave without pay as a result of not meeting the requirement; and (b) how many FedNor employees have had their employment terminated as a result of not meeting the requirement?
Response
Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for federal public servants, information from the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario is as follows: In response to (a), the answer is one; in response to (b), the answer is zero.

Question No. 375—
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the United Nations (UN) and the February 25, 2022, statement on Twitter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement that "fundamental reforms at the UN are required": (a) what specific fundamental reforms is the government seeking at the UN; (b) what action, if any, has the government taken to start making the fundamental reforms; and (c) what is the timeline under which the government would like to see each reform in (a) enacted?
Response
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
In response to (a), UN reform and redesign are and will continue to be priorities for Canada, as a strong, well-functioning UN system helps protect Canada’s national interests and values. We are committed to a more effective, efficient, relevant and accountable UN. This commitment is reflected in the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ and Minister of International Development’s mandate letters.
Canada supports efforts at the UN to promote better use of resources and find new and innovative ways of working and delivering its mandate more effectively, all with transparency and accountability to member states. Canada also supports effective and inclusive peace operations, conflict prevention, and peacebuilding.
In response to (b), key areas of focus have included governance reform at the executive boards and governing bodies of UN funds, programs and agencies; COVID-19 recovery efforts; financing for development; climate change; promoting national and local ownership for inclusive conflict prevention and peacebuilding; and humanitarian action. Advancing gender equality and protecting and promoting human rights are cross-cutting priorities.
With the UN development system, UNDS, entities, for instance, Canada continues to advocate for more joined-up and coordinated UN responses; greater coherence and integration across UN efforts in development, humanitarian and peacebuilding, the “triple nexus”; sharper results-based approaches and member state accountability, efficiency gains and reducing UNDS overlap and duplication; and innovative financing with links to sustainable development goals, SDG, financing.
Regarding internal management reform, Canada engages in discussions on ways to improve governance and management across the UN system. Sustained efforts include those undertaken through the Geneva Group, a group consisting of contributors to the UN, where Canada continues to advocate and press for efficiencies and cost-effectiveness while aligning resources to priorities. This includes, for example, improving hiring practices to recruit and retain a diverse, gender-balanced and rejuvenated workforce, as well as ensuring proper resourcing.
Canada supports UN Security Council, UNSC, reform and participates in initiatives that seek meaningful reform, including the annual intergovernmental negotiations on UNSC reform, which take place at the UN General Assembly. Canada is also a member of the Uniting for Consensus, UfC, group, a cross-regional group of UN member states that advocates for enhanced regional representation through expanding the council in the non-permanent category only, with the addition of longer-term seats, as well as new two-year seats. UfC does not support the expansion of permanent membership with veto privileges in the UNSC, nor changing the current permanent member configuration.
Canada also supports various initiatives that aim to increase the UNSC’s effectiveness and limit the use of the veto by permanent members, including as a signatory to the political declaration on suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocity, as well as the accountability, coherence and transparency group code of conduct. Additionally, Canada recently co-sponsored a new initiative that aims to convene a General Assembly debate immediately after a UNSC permanent member uses its veto on a draft resolution that is vital to the maintenance of international peace and security.
In response to (c), UN system reform is a continued, evolving, incremental process. The timeline for implementation of reforms as well as the pace of progress depend in most cases on intergovernmental processes, configuration of bodies or offices and concerted action of member states.

Question No. 378—
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the Output Based Pricing System (OBPS): (a) how much has the federal government collected from industry; and (b) how much has the federal government paid out under the OBPS in direct rebates to businesses (excluding project-based funding and corporate welfare grants) since it first came into effect?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), pricing carbon pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions while driving innovation to provide consumers and businesses with low-carbon options. Canada’s approach to pricing carbon pollution provides flexibility for provinces and territories to implement a carbon pricing system that makes sense for their circumstances, provided that the system meets minimum stringency criteria to ensure that it is stringent, fair and efficient as defined in the federal benchmark.
The federal carbon pollution pricing system, the backstop, has two elements: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels and an output-based pricing system, OBPS, for industrial facilities. The federal OBPS is designed to minimize competitiveness and carbon leakage risks in emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries.
The federal backstop applies in jurisdictions that request it or that do not have a carbon pricing system that aligns with the federal benchmark.
The fuel charge currently applies in Ontario, Manitoba, Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nunavut. The OBPS currently applies in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Yukon, Nunavut, and partially in Saskatchewan.
Under the federal approach, the OBPS is designed to put a price on the carbon pollution of large industrial facilities, while limiting the impacts of carbon pricing on their ability to compete in the Canadian market and abroad. Carbon costs can affect businesses that conduct activities that are emissions-intensive and highly internationally traded if they compete with similar businesses in countries that do not have carbon pricing in place. This approach minimizes the risk that businesses will move from Canada to jurisdictions that do not price carbon.
Instead of paying the fuel charge, an industrial facility in the OBPS faces a compliance obligation on the portion of emissions that exceed an annual limit. Covered facilities are required to provide compensation for GHG emissions that exceed an emissions limit and are issued surplus credits if their emissions are lower than the applicable emissions limit. Facilities can sell surplus credits or bank them for use in future years. The methods for providing compensation are one of the following or a combination of both: a) making an excess emissions charge payment electronically to the receiver general for Canada; and b) remitting compliance units, namely surplus credits, federal offset credits, or recognized units.
As of February 22, 2022, the Government of Canada had collected $396.2 million in excess emissions charge payments under the OBPS.
In response to (b), the Government of Canada has committed to return proceeds collected from the OBPS to jurisdictions of origin. Jurisdictions that have voluntarily adopted the OBPS, currently Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Nunavut, can opt for a direct transfer of proceeds collected. Proceeds collected in other backstop jurisdictions, current or past, including Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, will be returned through the two program streams of the OBPS proceeds fund.
The decarbonization incentive program, DIP, is a merit-based program that incentivizes the long-term decarbonization of Canada’s industrial sectors by supporting clean technology projects to reduce GHG emissions. Proceeds collected from most OBPS facilities will be returned via DIP to backstop jurisdictions.
The future electricity fund, FEF, stream is designed to support clean electricity projects and/or programs. Proceeds collected from OBPS-covered electricity-generating facilities, i.e., utilities, are expected to be returned through funding agreements with governments of backstop jurisdictions. An open call for project proposals is not anticipated under FEF.
Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, launched the OBPS proceeds fund on February 14, 2022, to return proceeds collected for the 2019 compliance period, approximately $161 million, and those collected in future years, amounts to be confirmed. The DIP stream of the OBPS proceeds fund is currently accepting project proposals that would reduce emissions across Canada’s industrial sectors. ECCC has also engaged with the governments of backstop jurisdictions to initiate negotiations of the bilateral funding agreements under FEF. Given the recent launch of the OBPS proceeds fund, ECCC has not yet returned any proceeds collected from the OBPS

Question No. 381—
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the estimated $1,235.4 millions in overpayments of income benefit payments by the government listed on page 147 of the 2021 Public Accounts of Canada, Volume I: (a) what is the breakdown of the estimated overpayments by income support program, including, for each program, the (i) dollar value of overpayments, (ii) number of Canadians who received overpayments; and (b) what are the comparative statistics for each item in (a), broken down by fiscal year since 2016-17?
Response
Ms. Ya’ara Saks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to payment accuracy figures included in note 10 of the employment insurance operating account financial statements, the payment accuracy information shared in the 2021 public accounts of Canada and included in note 10 of the financial statement represents an estimate of “potential” over/under payments, not actual established overpayments that are being collected. This note is included in the financial statements to provide users with an overview of the operations of the programs and a measure of accuracy of the benefit payments. Specifically, it should be noted that using a monetary unit sampling, MUS, methodology, the EI payment accuracy review program, PAAR, estimates the accuracy of EI benefit payments. The quality services division reviews several hundred files each year to identify undetected errors that could result in possible mispayments, which are either underpayment or overpayment. Based on the sampling method, MUS, and the observance and distribution of the mispayments across the sample, various statistics are generated for the primary goal of testing whether mispayments are below the 5% tolerance limit, with 95% accuracy set as the service standard.
In response to (a), the EI PAAR sample, or the number of files to be reviewed, is established in a manner to estimate mispayments at the overall program level. It does not include sufficient number of items for each subtype, i.e., income support program. As such, these figures are not available.
In response to (i), the actual recorded amounts are disclosed in note 3 of the audited employment insurance operating account financial statements.
The supplementary statement is in section 4, “Consolidated accounts as at March 31”, volume I, “Public Accounts of Canada 2021”, receiver general for Canada, PSPC, Canada.ca: https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2021/vol1/s4/es-ss-eng.html.
In response to (ii), the amount recorded as overpayments in the financial statements is $754 million and is based on actuals and estimated accruals. This represents potentially 388,000 claimants.
In response to (b), as indicated in the response to question (a), the EI PAAR sample is not large enough to provide this data.

Question No. 382—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the government's action following the Russian invasion of Ukraine: (a) what specific action, if any, is the government planning to take, in response to the invasion, to increase the output capacity of Canadian oil and gas so that Canada doesn't have to rely on foreign oil and gas; (b) what specific action, if any, is the Minister of Natural Resources taking to expedite the approval and construction of pipelines so that Canada doesn't have to rely on foreign oil and gas; and (c) if no specific action is being taken related to (a) or (b), why is the government favouring foreign oil and gas over Canadian oil and gas?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on February 28, 2022, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Government of Canada acted decisively to ban the import of crude oil and petroleum products from Russia. Canada produces more oil than required to meet its domestic refining needs. Although Canada does still import oil for certain regional needs, since 2019 there have been no imports of crude oil from Russia. This new ban will ensure that Canada will continue not to import any crude oil from Russia going forward. During the IEA ministerial on March 24, 2022, Canada announced the incremental increase in its oil and gas production of up to 300,000 barrels per day, including 200,000 barrels per day of oil and up to 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day of natural gas, by the end of 2022. Most of this additional production is the result of producers bringing forward planned production from 2023. This comes in the context of a release of 30.225 million barrels by the U.S. from its strategic petroleum reserve earlier this month, which was followed by a March 31, 2022, announcement by the President of the United States of another 180 million barrels over the next six months.
In August 2019, the Government of Canada announced the coming into force of the new Impact Assessment Act and the Canada Energy Regulator Act: https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/news/2019/08/better-rules-for-impact-assessments-come-into-effect-this-month.html. The better rules and regulations outlined in these acts have been implemented to give companies and investors more clarity and certainty, and to ensure good projects can move forward in a timely way. These acts will continue to build public confidence by ensuring that federal decisions made about pipelines, mines, and hydro dams are guided by science, indigenous knowledge, and other evidence.
The Government of Canada remains committed to completing projects currently under way in the proper manner, including the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, TMX. Once complete, pipeline capacity will increase from the current 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day. The project is 50% complete and is expected to be in service by late 2023. In addition, to enhance market access for Canadian natural gas, the Government of Canada approved three significant expansion projects on the Nova Gas Transmission Limited, NGTL, system since 2020, known as the NGTL 2021, north corridor, and Edson mainline expansions. Last, Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement project has now been completed and is in service on both sides of the border. This is another vital energy infrastructure that will strengthen continental energy security, while improving safety performance, increasing indigenous involvement, and enhancing economic benefits on both sides of the border.
The Government of Canada remains engaged with key international partners, such as Germany and the U.S., on a bilateral basis and in multilateral forums, including the IEA, on providing support in the medium to long term on stabilizing energy markets and the transition to clean energy.
In 2021, the Canada-Germany energy partnership was concluded. The purpose of the energy partnership is to advance engagement on the energy transformation through exchanges on policy, best practices and technologies, as well as through co-operative activities and projects focused on five key areas: energy policy, planning and regulations; resilient electricity systems that can integrate high levels of renewables; energy efficiency; sector coupling and low-carbon fuels; and innovation and applied research.
Under the partnership, Canada and Germany are working together to leverage Germany’s appetite for hydrogen and its efforts to abate sectors. Canada and Germany look to deepen and focus their collaborative work through our energy partnership, particularly in light of the Ukraine invasion and the desire for Canada to contribute to German energy security.
Bilateral work with Germany will draw from, and align with, the work being done under the Canada-EU energy security/green transition and LNG working group. The energy partnership is building a foundation for medium-term exports of responsibly produced LNG and hydrogen. Critical minerals will be added to the energy partnership action plan, in keeping with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of Germany’s announcement on March 9, 2022, of a new bilateral dialogue on mineral security.

Question No. 385—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the Create the Path Table, formerly known as the Market Crisis Joint Working Group, led by Natural Resources Canada, since its inception: (a) what is the membership of this working group as of January 31, 2022; (b) how many meetings have been held; (c) what were the dates of the meetings in (b); (d) who was in attendance at each meeting in (b); (e) what were the topics discussed at each meeting in (b); and (f) what were the agreed-upon action items from each meeting in (b)?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, NRCan has never established or led a working group related to Question No. 385.

Question No. 393—
Mr. Rob Moore:
With regard to the government's response to the 2020-2021 Annual Report from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity that is subject to the act: (a) what specific action has been taken to abide by the statement from the commissioner who, on page 16 of the report, in reference to the 30-day time limit required by law, states that "The downplaying or tolerance of invalid extensions and delays must end"; (b) on what date was each action in (a) taken; (c) what specific action has been taken to address each of the other concerns raised by the commissioner in the report, broken down by each concern; and (d) on what date was each action in (c) taken?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that the access to information process supports the transparency and accountability of Canadian federal institutions.
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, TBS, welcomes the Information Commissioner’s observations and recommendations on how the government can continue to ensure that the right of access to information for Canadians is upheld. TBS continues to work with institutions to support and share guidance, best practices, and operational solutions to help them overcome operational challenges.
The length of extensions that are taken by institutions is assessed on a case-by-case basis wherein the volume and complexity of the information for the specific request are taken into consideration. This includes time extension requirements to consult with other government institutions and/or with third parties. In addition, institutions are required to inform the Office of the Information Commissioner, OIC, when extending the initial request reply period beyond an additional 30 days. There also exists a recourse mechanism whereby a requester who feels that the extension is unreasonable may file a complaint with the OIC.
The government has made significant improvements to access to information over the years. Recent amendments to the Access to Information Act have increased government openness and transparency by requiring the online publication of more government information. In addition, summaries of completed access to information requests are currently published every 30 days on the Open Government portal and removed after a period of two years. TBS is working on extending the retention of these summaries beyond two years.
The Government of Canada remains focused on improving the systems that support access to information and privacy requests, helping institutions to address outstanding requests and continually improving ATI program performance. In budget 2021, the government invested $12.8 million to support further improvements to the online access to information and personal information request service, to accelerate the proactive release of information to Canadians, and to support completion of the Access to Information Act review.
This review is an opportunity to explore how new tools and approaches could improve efficiency and make information more open and accessible to Canadians. The review will further examine the legislative framework, identify improvements to proactive disclosure to make information openly available, and assess processes and systems to improve service and reduce delays.
A list of key actions, implemented, planned or under way, to improve access to information and transparency is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/reviewing-access-information/the-review-process/key-actions-access-information.html.
Access to information requestsBank accountsBanks and bankingBloc Québécois CaucusBritish ColumbiaCanada Pension PlanCanadian investments abroadCannabisCannabis ActCarbon pricingChabot, Louise ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 3—
Mr. Mario Beaulieu:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage’s official languages funding programs over the past 10 years, broken down by year: (a) what amounts were allocated, broken down by province, by program and by component; and (b) what is the breakdown of the amounts allocated in (a) to the various institutions across the country, broken down by province, by level of education (primary, secondary, post-secondary) and by the institution’s main language of operation (anglophone institutions and francophone institutions)?
Response
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the information can be found using the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/official-languages-bilingualism/publications.html.
In response to (b), the requested information is not tracked in Canadian Heritage’s financial systems.

Question No. 5—
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the government payments made to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): has the government done a value-for-money analysis on its payments to the AIIB, and, if so, what are the details of the analysis, including (i) the date the analysis was completed, (ii) who conducted the analysis, (iii) the findings?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, officials from the Department of Finance actively analyze AIIB activities and represent Canada’s interests through their participation in the institution’s board of directors. This includes reviewing proposals and operations going to the board for approval to ensure that they align with Canadian priorities, such as promoting strong, inclusive economic growth, ensuring environmental protection, tackling climate change, preventing forced labor, supporting gender equality and promoting transparent information disclosure.

Question No. 6—
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the government's investments in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): does the government know how many Canadians are employed on projects funded by the AIIB, and, if so, what is the breakdown by project?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of November 26, 2021, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB, has funded 153 sovereign and non-sovereign projects since its creation. The nationality of the individuals employed by its clients in these projects is not a metric that is tracked by the AIIB.
The Government of Canada is aware of five Canadian firms having signed contracts as part of the AIIB’s corporate procurement since Canada officially joined the AIIB in March 2018: In 2018, the LEA Consulting Group provided consulting services on an AIIB-financed project; in 2018, the Hatch consultancy firm provided services on an AIIB-financed project; in 2019, the Edmonton-based Insignia Software Corporation provided library management system services to the AIIB; in 2020, EQ Consulting Inc. was awarded two separate contracts by the AIIB for the implementation of market risk tools and order management systems support; in 2021, a joint venture company involving the Canadian company ISW Consulting Limited provided consultancy services on an AIIB-financed project.
The AIIB’s treasury department has also procured the services of Canadian financial institutions, such as TD, BMO, RBC and Scotiabank, as part of its funding program.

Question No. 7—
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines by the government: what is the amount per dose that the government paid for the vaccines, broken down by manufacturer (Pfizer, Moderna, etc.)?
Response
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has committed over $9 billion to procure vaccines and therapeutics and to provide international support.
As part of our commitment to transparency, Public Services and Procurement Canada has worked with its vaccine suppliers to secure their agreement on publicly releasable versions of Canada’s vaccine contracts. These documents, which were provided to the Standing Committee on Health, fully respect the Access to Information Act, so information that is commercially confidential, such as details on price, or that could impact Canada’s ability to negotiate future contracts, has been protected. This approach allows us to release as much information as possible without compromising our existing agreements or our ability to keep Canadians safe.
For more information on the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, please visit https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/procuring-vaccines-covid19.html.

Question No. 10—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program and proposed projects in the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London that have been received by the government from the Province of Ontario, but have not been announced: (a) what are the details of all such projects, including the (i) name of the project, (ii) date the application was received, (iii) funding stream the project qualifies for, (iv) current status (approved, rejected, awaiting decision, etc.); (b) for each application that has been approved but not announced, what are the plans related to the announcement, if an announcement is planned; (c) for each application that was rejected, why was it rejected; and (d) for each application where a decision is still pending, what is the anticipated timeframe for when a decision will be made?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the investing in Canada infrastructure program and proposed projects in the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, Infrastructure Canada’s program information management system does not contain information by federal riding. Therefore, information is provided based on the localities within the federal electoral district as defined by Elections Canada.
Infrastructure Canada does not have any pending applications for infrastructure projects in localities within the electoral district of Elgin—Middlesex—London from the government of the Province of Ontario with regard to the investing in Canada infrastructure program.
Under the investing in Canada infrastructure program, provinces and territories are responsible for the planning, prioritization, design, financing and administration of infrastructure projects that are cost-shared with Infrastructure Canada, which is a funding partner. Municipalities submit their proposed projects to a province or territory, which prioritizes and forwards eligible projects to Infrastructure Canada for federal due diligence and funding consideration.
For more information on projects funded under Infrastructure Canada’s contribution programs, please visit http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/map-carte/index-eng.html.

Question No. 15—
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the Clean Fuel Standard and Clean Fuel Regulations: (a) has the government identified the expected sources of renewable fuel expected to be used in transportation fuels under the Clean Fuel Standard; (b) what is the expected carbon intensity of the renewable fuels to be used in transportation fuels; (c) what is the expected net impact on carbon intensity of transportation fuels; and (d) what is the expected net impact on total greenhouse gas emissions?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to (a), the proposed clean fuel regulations, referred hereafter as the proposed regulations, will result in an increased demand for lower carbon intensity, CI, fuels in Canada, which could be met by increased imports and/or increased domestic production. The government has established a $1.5 billion clean fuels fund to support the domestic production of lower CI fuels to help regulated parties come into compliance under the proposed regulations at lower cost and to incent domestic investment. The regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the final regulations will include quantitative estimates of the volumes of renewable fuels that will be used to comply with the regulations. These estimates will be based on the final design of the regulations, which are expected to be published in spring 2022.
With respect to ethanol in gasoline, current levels of domestically produced ethanol are insufficient to meet E15, where gasoline is blended with 15% ethanol at a national level, in Canada in 2030. It is expected that domestic production will increase. It is also possible that Canada could import the additional volumes of ethanol needed.
With respect to biodiesel and hydrogenation derived renewable diesel, HDRD, in diesel, it is possible that domestic production of biodiesel could meet the additional volumes of lower CI diesel needed. Canada currently produces enough biodiesel domestically to meet domestic demand; however, Canadian producers export a significant portion of domestically produced biodiesel to the United States.
With respect to (b), the regulatory impact analysis statement that accompanied the proposed regulations used interim national average life-cycle assessment carbon intensity values in the calculation of credits. These life-cycle assessment carbon intensity values were determined based on Canadian data and other life-cycle assessment tools, and were compared to fuel pathways submitted to the regulators in British Columbia and California. The regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the final regulations will include quantitative estimates based on the final design of the regulations. The final regulations are expected to be published in spring 2022.
With respect to (c), the proposed regulations would require liquid fossil fuel primary suppliers, i.e., producers and importers, to reduce the carbon intensity of the liquid fossil fuels they produce and import for use in Canada from 2016 CI levels by 2.4 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule of energy, gCO2e/MJ, in 2022, increasing to 12 gCO2e/MJ in 2030.
With respect to (d), the clean fuel standard is expected to have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the final regulations will include quantitative estimates of GHG emission impacts based on the final design of the regulations. The final regulations are expected to be published in spring 2022.

Question No. 19—
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the Tourism and Hospitality Recovery Program in the riding of Calgary Shepard: (a) how many applications were received in the riding of Calgary Shepard; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were (i) successful, (ii) denied or rejected; (c) what is the breakdown of the number of successful applicants by type of business (hotel, restaurant, tour operator, etc.); and (d) what is the breakdown of the number of denied or rejected applicants by type of business?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA. As of the date of the inquiry, that is November 23, 2021, the tourism and hospitality recovery program being referred to in the question had not yet opened for applications. As such, the CRA cannot answer in the manner requested as there are no data available at this time.

Question No. 23—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to information collected from the former long-gun registry that was abolished in 2012: does the government, including the RCMP, currently have access to any of the information collected from the former registry, and, if so, what specific information and how is it being used?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Bill C-19, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, all registration records for non-restricted firearms were destroyed in the Canadian firearms information system, CFIS, in 2012, with the exception of Quebec records deleted in 2015.
However, prior to the destruction of the Quebec records, pursuant to a court order, the RCMP was ordered by the Federal Court to retain a copy of the Quebec non-restricted firearm registration records outside of the Canadian firearms information system, CFIS, in an independent unconnected repository due to litigation with the Office of the Information Commissioner.
In accordance with the provisions in Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, a copy was provided to the Quebec Ministry of Public Security. The records need to be retained until no longer required for access to information and privacy, ATIP, purposes. These records are not accessible for any other purpose, and remain offline.
The Office of the Information Commissioner is currently confirming that there are no outstanding provisions that require the copy to be retained. Once confirmation is received, the copy of the Quebec non-restricted firearm registration records can be destroyed.

Question No. 28—
Ms. Melissa Lantsman:
With regard to considerations or analysis made by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) to move the Embassy of Canada to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, since January 1, 2016: (a) what specific actions were taken by GAC in relation to any considerations or analysis made related to the location of the embassy; (b) what was the specific timeline for each action in (a); (c) what was the final decision regarding whether to move the embassy or not; (d) how many officials were assigned to analyze or give consideration to options related to a possible relocation of the embassy; and (e) have GAC officials conducted any site visits to potential locations in Jerusalem which may be used in the future by GAC, and, if so, what are the details including, the (i) location, (ii) date of the visit, (iii) potential future uses by GAC?
Response
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. Global Affairs Canada has not taken any actions related to moving the Embassy of Canada to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On December 6, 2017, the United States announced it would formally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and would begin the process of moving the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. On December 7, 2017, the Prime Minister stated publicly that Canada would not be moving its embassy from Tel Aviv.

Question No. 30—
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB): (a) how many individuals who received CERB had a mailing address outside of Canada; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by the number of individuals in each country; and (c) what is the total value of CERB payments made to individuals with a mailing address outside of Canada?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, in response to (a), a total of 1,610 individuals who received CERB had a mailing address outside of Canada.
In response to (b), the breakdown of individuals who received CERB is 60 in Australia, 20 in China, 80 in France, 20 in Germany, 80 in India, 50 in Ireland, 20 in Japan, 20 in New Zealand, 20 in the Philippines, 90 in the United Kingdom, 720 in the United States, and 420 in all other countries.
Countries with fewer than 20 beneficiaries have been grouped into a single category to ensure confidentiality. All counts are rounded to the nearest 10.
In response to (c), the total value of CERB payments is $11,906,000. Dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest 1000.
While CERB required individuals to reside inside Canada to qualify, some individuals may have been out of the country on a temporary basis, or working in Canada on a temporary basis: for example, a student who is temporarily abroad, someone temporarily working abroad, someone who could not make it back into the country due to the pandemic, or a temporary worker who has fallen ill but their home address is in another country.
This response is derived using data as of late November 2021. These data are updated daily to reflect new beneficiaries, additional or completed benefits, changes in rules, etc. While daily changes typically have a small impact on global counts and payment amounts, it should be noted that this table may not match previously published information. There are a few reasons to explain these differences: For example, cases now have a more recent address in our data holding; cases cover a situation where the CERB benefit was changed to another benefit type; cases where the CERB benefits were reclaimed.

Question No. 33—
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to executives at the Canadian Infrastructure Bank receiving bonuses during the COVID-19 pandemic: for the 2020-21 fiscal year, how many executives received bonuses in excess of (i) $100,000, (ii) $250,000?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during the 2020-21 fiscal year, the members of the executive committee of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, CIB, consisted of the following individuals: chief executive officer, who is responsible for strategic business leadership and overall performance of the organization; chief investment officer, who is responsible for advisory and investment strategy and activities, capital deployment and asset management; chief financial officer and chief administrative officer, who is responsible for corporate finance, ERM, legal and compliance, human resources, information technology and administration; group head, corporate affairs, policy and communications, who is responsible for federal government relations, corporate planning, communications, media and stakeholder relations, knowledge and policy research.
Details of the CIB’s compensation to executives, including the principles and the criteria used in reaching executive compensation decisions for the 2020-21 fiscal year, are disclosed in the CIB’s 2020-21 annual report submitted to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and the President of the Treasury Board, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act. Compensation paid for each fiscal year to key management personnel, which includes executives and members of the board of directors, is disclosed in the notes to the annual audited financial statements in the CIB’s annual report. Page 86 of the 2020-21 annual report describes key management personnel compensation for the 2020-21 fiscal year. Salaries and short-term employee benefits were $3,075 million.
With regard to bonuses received by executives as it pertains to the members of the executive committee listed above, the information constitutes “personal information” as defined in the Privacy Act, and the CIB applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act to withhold information that constitutes personal information.
The CIB requires individuals with commercial experience and professional skills from the investment and finance industries to develop and execute complex infrastructure projects in partnership with proponents and private sector investors to deliver the best value for public resources. Consistent with these objectives, the CIB’s compensation framework reflects best practices of Crown corporations and other comparable organizations in the financial services and insurance sectors to ensure the compensation rates are fair and appropriate. The CIB does not disclose individual compensation received by the chief executive officer and other executives, due to competitive and privacy considerations. This disclosure complies with the requirements for Crown corporations in the Financial Administration Act and is aligned with the policies, guidelines and directives established by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, including guidance with respect to the preparation of corporate plans and annual reports.
On June 30, 2021, the CIB provided a response to a motion passed at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities requesting that the CIB file all documents detailing the bonus policies and payment of bonuses to executives and the board of directors since the CIB’s inception.

Question No. 39—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With respect to the government’s energy policy and its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: (a) how does the government define the term “fossil fuel subsidy” in the context of its commitments in this respect; (b) what level of carbon tax does the government consider necessary for Canada to meet all of its greenhouse gas reduction commitments; and (c) what is the estimated cost to the Canadian economy associated with each of the measures announced by the government at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP26?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), while there is no commonly held definition, there has been a general understanding that fossil fuel subsidies encompass price controls, cash subsidies and tax preferences—i.e., concessions from a particular country’s “normal” level of taxation—whether aimed at producers or consumers of fossil fuel. The term “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies also lacks a commonly accepted definition and was not defined in any of the four pairs of G20 peer reviews completed to date. Environment and Climate Change Canada and Finance Canada are working to finalize an assessment framework that will define these terms in the Canadian context.
In response to (b), there is a clear cost from a changing climate, so it cannot be free to pollute. That is why the Government of Canada introduced a price on carbon pollution across Canada in 2019. Putting a price on carbon pollution reduces emissions and encourages innovation, allowing Canada to meet its economic needs and its environmental goals at the same time. The price on carbon pollution is currently $40 per tonne. It will increase annually until it reaches $170 per tonne in 2030. The increasing price will make cleaner options more affordable and discourage pollution-intensive investments.
As the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed, the Government of Canada’s carbon pricing system is not a tax.
Carbon pricing is a key part of the government’s approach to reducing emissions while supporting the transition to a competitive, low-carbon economy. It is not the only measure being used, however, and the government has therefore not projected what carbon price would be needed in the absence of other measures to achieve either its 2030 national determined commitment of 40% to 45% reduction below 2005 levels or its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
In response to (c), the actions taken by this government to address climate change, including through the strengthened climate plan and the important announcements made at COP26, are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to the harmful effects of climate change while growing our economy. The environment and the economy go hand in hand.

Question No. 41—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the AUKUS trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States announced in September 2021: (a) on what date did the government become aware of conversations surrounding the creation of AUKUS; (b) was Canada invited to join AUKUS, and, if so, why did it decline the invitation; (c) is the government interested in having Canada join AUKUS; and (d) has the government conducted any assessments on whether the creation of AUKUS had a positive or negative impact on Canada’s national interest, and, if so, what were the findings of the assessment?
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. With respect to parts (a) to (d), a changing world requires adapting and expanding diplomatic engagement. Canada will continue working with key allies and partners, while making deliberate efforts to deepen partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. AUKUS is a partnership that responds to the security needs of Australia, including that country’s decision to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to maximize the range and capabilities of Australia’s submarines. Canada currently has no plans to acquire nuclear submarines, the centerpiece of the arrangement announced on September 15, 2021. As such, Canada has not and does not seek to be directly involved in the nuclear-powered submarine aspects of this trilateral arrangement, nor would the Government of Canada expect to have been consulted on such an arrangement.
Prior to the announcement of AUKUS, our Australian, United Kingdom and United States counterparts ensured that Canada was briefed on the announcement. Although the announcement occurred prior to the newly appointed ministers, both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence continue to remain in close contact, as always, with all three countries on matters of defence cooperation and with respect to our shared strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region.
Security in the Indo-Pacific is a priority that requires close collaboration with a wide range of partners and Canada remains committed to working with our partners and allies on security and stability in the region.
Canada has expanded its defence and security engagement in the Indo-Pacific region through an enhanced naval presence, growing multilateral contributions and increased bilateral engagement with key partners.

Question No. 42—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to government meetings and representations since January 1, 2020, concerning the situation of Mr. Huseyin Celil: (a) which ministers, Liberal members of Parliament acting on behalf of a minister, political staff, or senior officials have met with Kamila Talendibaeva, and what are the details of each meeting, including (i) the date, (ii) the individuals in attendance, (iii) whether the meeting was virtual or in person; (b) which ministers, Liberal members of Parliament acting on behalf of a minister, political staff, or senior officials have met with any other representatives of Mr. Celil, and what are the details of each meeting, including (i) the date, (ii) the individuals in attendance, (iii) whether the meeting was virtual or in person; (c) has the government highlighted Mr. Celil’s case in conversations or meetings with representatives of the US government or the government of any other allied country and, if so, what are the details of each such instance, including the (i) country, (ii) title of the Canadian representative; (iii) title of the foreign official, (iii) date; and (d) what are the details of all representations which have been made to the Chinese government regarding Mr. Celil’s case by representatives of the Canadian government, including (i) who made these representations, (ii) who were they made to, (iii) the date?
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. While privacy considerations prevent the sharing of details, the Government of Canada has been clear from the beginning that the case of Mr. Huseyincan Celil is of utmost importance and has been actively engaged on his case. Canadian officials in Ottawa and Beijing are in regular contact with Mr. Celil’s family in Canada, as well as their representatives, to provide support.
Canada has repeatedly raised Mr. Celil’s case with Chinese counterparts at the highest levels. Since his initial detention, Canadian government representatives have made over 170 representations to Chinese officials on Mr. Celil’s behalf and will continue to do so.

Question No. 57—
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the changes outlined in Transport Canada’s Advisory Circular No. 301-001 issue no. 3 respecting the rules regarding Instrument Approach Procedures at non-certified aerodromes: (a) what is the policy objective for this change; (b) how many additional days a year on average, broken down by province, will non-certified aerodromes be inaccessible due to the new instrument approach procedures; (c) what exceptions are being made to ensure that medical evacuation flights will not be impacted by this change; and (d) when is the change expected to come into force?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a), aviation safety is a key priority for Transport Canada. The objective of the amendments to Transport Canada’s advisory circular No. 301-001, issue no. 3, respecting the rules regarding instrument approach procedures at non-certified aerodromes is to improve the level of safety offered by instrument approaches in Canada and bring it to par with that of the international community, the Federal Aviation Administration and what is currently offered at certified aerodromes, namely airports, in Canada.
With respect to part (b), Transport Canada does not track aerodrome accessibility. Rather, it is the responsibility of non-certified aerodrome operators to select the level of service that meets the needs of their communities and, subsequently, it is also their responsibility to meet the aviation safety regulatory requirements associated with the level of service they determine is the best for their community.
With respect to part (c), the department does not anticipate the need for deviation or exemption for the great majority of aerodromes with the introduction of the new specifications, which will be scalable to individual aerodromes. However, if there is a need for a deviation or exemption, the aerodrome operator, through the sponsor of the instrument approach procedure, may submit an exemption request, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This includes the need for the requesting party to make the demonstration that the exemption is in the public interest and that the proposed mitigations provide an equivalent level of safety to the Canadian aviation regulations it seeks to be exempted from. In this instance, no exemptions are being considered, and this is not the issue at play for the reason noted below.
The vast majority of airports, namely certified aerodromes, are suitable for most medical evacuations or medevac operations. It is non-certified registered aerodromes, that we are discussing in the context of advisory circular No. 301-001, and not all aerodromes, registered or not, are suitable for every type of operation. In fact, some aerodromes, for example, short and/or obstacles rich runway environment, may not be suitable for fixed wing medevacs or most commercial operations. As mentioned above, it is ultimately the pilot’s responsibility to ensure that the aerodrome they intend to operate at is suitable for the type of aircraft they intend to use and the type of operation they intend to conduct.
With respect to part (d), Transport Canada’s advisory circular No. 301-001, issue no. 3, was due to come into force on December 31, 2021. However, as noted above, a new version is being developed and is expected to be available before the end of the current fiscal year. Transport Canada will continue to work with key stakeholders, including Nav Canada, on the implementation of the revised advisory circular.

Question No. 60—
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the Advisory Panel on Systemic racism, discrimination with a focus on anti-Indigenous and anti-Black racism, LGBTQ2+ prejudice, gender bias and white supremacy announced by the Minister of National Defence in December 2020: (a) why was focusing on antisemitism and Islamophobia not part of the panel’s mandate; (b) was the decision to exclude antisemitism or Islamophobia intentional or was it a mistake; and (c) if these exclusions were a mistake, what specific action, if any, has the Minister of National Defence taken to correct these errors, and on what date was the action taken?
Response
Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no room in the Canadian Armed Forces or the Department of National Defence for sexism, misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, discrimination, harassment or any other conduct that prevents the institution from being a truly welcoming and inclusive organization.
National Defence understands that culture change within the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence is required to remove toxic behaviours and to create an environment where everyone is respected, valued, and can feel safe to contribute to the best of their ability.
This is why on December 17, 2020, the Minister of National Defence created an advisory panel as part of National Defence’s efforts to support Indigenous, Black and people of colour, along with the LGBTQ2+ community, and women.
With respect to parts (a), (b) and (c), the minister’s advisory panel is mandated to identify and address systemic racism and discrimination within the Defence team. Additionally, the advisory panel is tasked with providing advice and recommendations on how to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination, which impacts the recruitment, retention and equality of opportunity for all marginalized and racialized members of the Defence team.
The panel’s mandate was purposely made broad to ensure that the panel’s scope could be as far-reaching as required. While the panel is designed to focus on anti-indigenous and anti-Black racism, LGBTQ2+ prejudice, gender bias and white supremacy, the panel is not restricted from exploring all forms of racism.
The exploration of white supremacy allows the panel to address anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, as Jewish and Muslim people are common targets of white supremacy and white supremacists. For example, as part of its engagements with internal and external defence stakeholders, panel members have explored the concept of anti-hate, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. This included holding separate meetings with members of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, and the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism at the Ontario Tech University, to discuss issues related to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
The advisory panel has regularly met with the minister’s office to update and brief it on their progress. Due to challenges caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic, the panel requested and received a short extension to provide its report. The panel delivered its final report and recommendations to address the policies, processes and practices that enable discriminatory behaviours within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to the minister on January 7, 2022.
The Minister of National Defence is currently reviewing the panel’s report and recommendations and will meet with departmental officials to discuss potential next steps.
The panel’s report and recommendations will contribute to eliminating harmful attitudes and beliefs that have enabled racism and discrimination, and will create an environment where all feel welcome in the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces.

Question No. 61—
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the appointment of the Honourable Irwin Cotler as Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism: (a) what specific government resources have been allocated to the Envoy to ensure he can fulfill his mandate; (b) since his appointment on November 25, 2020, what specific measurable outcomes have been achieved; (c) will there be regular reports tabled by or on behalf of the Envoy outlining his progress and, if so, what are the details; and (d) has office space been allocated to the envoy and, if so, where are the offices located (i.e. city and address)?
Response
Mr. Paul Chiang (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Diversity and Inclusion), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to (a), Global Affairs Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage have supported the special envoy during the first year through existing departmental resources. The Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion within Global Affairs has dedicated the equivalent of 1.5 full-time equivalents, FTEs, to support the special envoy as he fulfills his international mandate. The multiculturalism and anti-racism branch within the Department of Canadian Heritage has also dedicated the equivalent of 1.5 FTEs to support the special envoy as he fulfills his domestic mandate.
With respect to (b), key international accomplishments include leading Canada’s delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and supporting Canada’s delegation to the Malmö International Forum. Key domestic accomplishments to date include co-convening the July 2021 federal summit on anti-Semitism; developing Canada’s pledges on Holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism, announced by Prime Minister Trudeau at the Malmö International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Anti-Semitism, October 2021; the promotion of Holocaust Education Month, November 2021; and domestic outreach. The special envoy’s extensive bilateral efforts included individual meetings with international counterparts and virtual events hosted by Canadian missions. Multilaterally, he worked with partners at the United Nations, European Union and Organization of American States to build awareness and support, including as a panelist at an event co-organized by Canada at the UN Human Rights Council on combatting anti-Semitism.
With respect to (c), a public report by the special envoy to the government is in the process of being prepared and will be made public once finalized.
With respect to (d), no office space has been assigned to the Honourable Irwin Cotler, as the government continues to work remotely due to the COVID 19 pandemic.

Question No. 62—
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to government projections on the impact of inflation: (a) what is the projected impact that inflation will have on the (i) real, (ii) nominal value of income to seniors who receive payments from the Canadian Pension Plan, Guaranteed Income Supplement, and Old Age Security; (b) has the government conducted any analysis on the impact that inflation will have on seniors living on fixed incomes and, if so, what are the details, including the findings of the analysis; (c) what are the government’s projections related to the projected buying power of seniors with (i) current, (ii) projected levels of inflation annually over the duration of the next 10 years; and (d) what inflation levels did the government use in its projections related to (c)?
Response
Hon. Kamal Khera (Minister of Seniors, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to government projections on the impact of inflation, in response to (a), old age security, OAS, and Canada pension plan, CPP, benefits are indexed to inflation. To retain their value over time and to protect the purchasing power of beneficiaries, OAS and CPP benefits are adjusted in accordance with changes in the consumer price index, CPI. The Old Age Security Act and the Canada pension plan also each contain a guarantee ensuring that benefits can never be reduced, even in the event of a decline in the CPI.
OAS rate increases apply to all benefits under the OAS program. This includes the OAS pension, as well as the income-tested guaranteed income supplement, GIS, and the allowances. Rate increases are calculated four times per year, in January, April, July and October, using the all-items index from the CPI. Quarterly indexation allows for faster adjustment of OAS benefit amounts following cost-of-living increases.
CPP rate increases are calculated once a year using the CPI all-items index and come into effect each January. Therefore, the value of benefits in pay is fully protected and takes into account year-over-year increases in prices as measured by Statistics Canada.
OAS and CPP benefit adjustments in accordance with changes in the CPI ensure that the value of benefits seniors receive is fully protected. As a result, seniors can rest assured that there will be no loss in spending power as a result of the higher inflation experienced in late 2021.
In response to (b), the vast majority of seniors in Canada receive the OAS pension. Low-income OAS pensioners are eligible to receive the GIS. Both of these benefits are adjusted four times a year based on changes in the CPI. Indexation on a quarterly basis allows for faster adjustments to OAS benefits following increases in inflation.
The Office of the Chief Actuary, OCA, is responsible for providing appropriate checks and balances on the future costs of the different pension plans and social programs that fall under its responsibility, including for the OAS program and the CPP. Every three years, the OCA prepares actuarial reports for both the OAS program and the CPP, which includes analyses of OAS and CPP benefits.
In response to (c), the OCA provides short- and long-term projections of inflation levels. Their projections are based on Bank of Canada inflation targets, as well as other economic forecasts. In the OCA’s most recent actuarial reports of the OAS program and the CPP, released in 2020 and 2019 respectively, inflation was projected at 2% per year.
A new actuarial report on the CPP will be tabled in Parliament in fall 2022, which will include new inflation projections.

Question No. 64—
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to the Order in Council SOR/2020-96 published on May 1, 2020 whereas it states that “the newly prescribed firearms are primarily designed for military or paramilitary purposes” and as the former Minister of Public Safety has re-stated this in the House of Commons of the over 1,500 newly prohibited firearms on numerous occasions: (a) which specific models that were prohibited on May 1, 2020 or since have been or are still in use by the Canadian Armed Forces; and (b) which specific models prohibited on May 1, 2020 or since are in use by any national military in the world?
Response
Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, firearms are critical to allowing Canadian Armed Forces members to conduct its operations. All Canadian Armed Forces members operating firearms undergo rigorous training on the safe use of firearms and undergo routine assessments to ensure operational safety measures and protocol are always followed.
In response to (a), information on prohibited firearms with regard to the Order in Council SOR/2020-96, published on May 1, 2020, in use by the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy, and Royal Canadian Air Force can be found listed below.
Prohibited firearms in use by the Canadian Armed Forces broken down by model are as follows: C7A2, C20, C15.
For reasons of operational security, information on firearms used by the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command cannot be disclosed.
In response to (b), National Defence does not keep a centralized record of firearms used by foreign militaries and cannot provide details on the specific firearms used by other militaries.

Question No. 65—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the rate of inflation in 2021 exceeding the Bank of Canada's annual target, according to the Department of Finance's projections, and Statistics Canada's census metropolitan areas: (a) how high must the benchmark interest rate rise to restore inflation to the Bank of Canada's target for each year between 2022 and 2027 inclusively; (b) by how much will the interest rate increases in (a) directly or indirectly increase the cost of servicing Canada's national debt; (c) for each of Statistics Canada's census metropolitan area, how many potential first time homebuyers will the increase in (a) exclude from Canada's real estate markets between 2022 and 2027 inclusively; and (d) for each of Statistics Canada's census metropolitan area, how much will the increase in (a) increase consumer debt?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, maintaining a stable environment for the prices Canadians pay is the paramount objective in Canada’s monetary policy. The Bank of Canada’s renewed framework will keep it focused on delivering low, stable and predictable inflation in Canada.
To do so, the Bank raises or lowers its key policy rate to bring economic activity in line with the productive capacity of the economy and to achieve its inflation target. Upon reaching the inflation target and the balance between aggregate demand and the economy’s productive capacity, the interest rate usually eventually settles around what central bankers call the “neutral rate of interest”. This neutral rate is changing over time and has declined over the past 2 decades as a result of low inflation. For Canada, the Bank of Canada estimates currently that this neutral rate lies between 1.75 and 2.75 percent, with a midpoint of 2.25 per cent.
The Department of Finance surveys private sector economists for their views on the outlook for the Canadian economy when preparing its economic and fiscal projections. The average of private sector economic forecasts has been used as the basis for fiscal planning since budget 1994. This practice introduces an element of independence into the fiscal forecast, and has been supported by international organizations such as the IMF.
According to the latest average economic forecast presented in the December 2021 “Economic and Fiscal Update”, inflation is expected to return within the 1 to 3 percent inflation control range of the Bank of Canada by 2023 and to have essentially returned to the 2 percent inflation target by 2024. The interest rate on 3-month treasury bills is also expected to return to 2 percent, a level consistent with the Bank of Canada’s policy interest rate having returned to the neutral interest rate. As a result, our public debt charges are projected to increase from about 1 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2021-22 to 1.3 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2026-27. This remains a historically low level, and well below the pre-financial crisis level of 2.1 per cent in 2007-08, despite extraordinary spending due to the pandemic.

Question No. 66—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the rate of inflation in 2021 exceeding the Bank of Canada's annual target, according to the Department of Finance's projections, and to Statistics Canada's census metropolitan areas: (a) how high must the benchmark interest rate rise to bring annual inflation rates below the Bank of Canada's target to achieve an annual average rate of the Bank of Canada's target over the next five years; (b) by how much will the interest rate increase in (a) directly or indirectly increase the cost of servicing Canada's national debt; (c) for each of Statistics Canada's census metropolitan area, how many potential first time homebuyers will the increase in (a) exclude from Canada's real estate markets over the next five years; and (d) for each of Statistics Canada's census metropolitan area, how much will the increase in (a) increase consumer debt?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, maintaining a stable environment for the prices Canadians pay is the paramount objective in Canada’s monetary policy. The Bank of Canada’s renewed framework will keep it focused on delivering low, stable, and predictable inflation in Canada.
To do so, the bank raises or lowers its key policy rate to bring economic activity in line with the productive capacity of the economy and achieve its inflation target. Upon reaching the inflation target and the balance between aggregate demand and the economy’s productive capacity, the interest rate usually settles around what central bankers call the “neutral rate of interest”. This neutral rate is changing over time and has declined over the past two decades as a result of low inflation. For Canada, the Bank of Canada estimates currently that this neutral rate lies between 1.75% and 2.75%, with a midpoint of 2.25%.
The Department of Finance surveys private sector economists on their views on the outlook for the Canadian economy when preparing economic and fiscal projections. The average of private sector economic forecasts has been used as the basis for fiscal planning since budget 1994. This practice introduces an element of independence into the fiscal forecast and has been supported by international organizations such as the IMF.
According to the latest average economic forecast presented in the December 2021 economic and fiscal update, inflation is expected to return within the 1% to 3% inflation control range of the Bank of Canada by 2023 and to have essentially returned to the 2% inflation target by 2024. The interest rate on the three-month treasury bill is also expected to return to 2%, a level consistent with the Bank of Canada’s policy interest rate having returned to the neutral interest rate. As a result, our public debt charges are projected to increase from about 1% of GDP, in financial year 2021-22, to 1.3% of GDP in financial year 2026-27. This remains a historically low level, and well below the pre-financial crisis level of 2.1% in 2007-08, despite extraordinary spending due to the pandemic.

Question No. 67—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions produced by operations in Canada's oilsands which the Prime Minister announced at the COP26 Summit in Glasgow: (a) how many jobs does the government forecast will be lost or not created for each year between 2021 and 2050, inclusively, due to (i) planned investments in the oil sands which will be cancelled as a result of the announcement, (ii) capital flight as existing producers in the oil sands relocate to other jurisdictions, (iii) reduction in production and investment by existing producers; (b) if the government doesn't have projections or forecasts for (a), why has it not studied these factors; (c) by how much will economic activity decline for each year between 2021 and 2050 in oil and gas producing provinces, as measured by dollar value and percentage of gross domestic product, further to the announcement; and (d) how high of a border adjustment levy must be imposed on imports of foreign-produced energy sources to match the standards to be imposed on Canadian producers further to the announcement?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognized that climate change is one of the great challenges of our times and that to thrive in a net-zero world, Canada must do its part to reduce emissions and ensure that the transition to clean growth is just and equitable.
As these are still early days, the government is seeking the input of the net-zero advisory body on key principles for implementing the emissions targets for oil and gas, and is engaging key stakeholders, including provinces and territories, representatives from the oil and gas industry, non-governmental organizations and our indigenous partners.
The recently published Alberta Energy Transition study, conducted for Calgary Economic Development and Global Edmonton, notes that the global energy transition could create 170,000 jobs in Alberta alone and contribute $61 billion to the province's gross domestic product, GDP, by 2050.
The government is also aware of studies such as the one released by TD Economics, including their conclusion that the transition to net zero will create new job opportunities, and their recommended framework for transitioning to clean energy employment.
The Clean Resource Innovation Network commissioned the Global Advantage Consulting Group Inc. to conduct a study on the level of research and development expenditures in the industry. The study found that the domestic oil patch is the largest spender on clean technology in Canada, accounting for 75 per cent of the $1.4 billion spent annually. The Government of Canada believes that there is enormous opportunity for the industry to help lead Canada’s clean-tech transformation, and will be mindful of that as it works to develop the way forward.
The government has every expectation that its discussions with key partners such as provinces and territories and other stakeholders will allow it to forge a path to decarbonization in the oil and gas sector to meet Canada’s net-zero-by-2050 target, and not only protect Canadian jobs but grow them in a new era of sustainable prosperity.

Question No. 74—
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to government analysis on the impact of the Bank of Canada's low inflation target on the Ontario economy: (a) has the government done any projections on the impact of maintaining the low inflation target on Ontario's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator; and (b) has the government done any projections on the impact of abandoning the low inflation target on Ontario's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, policy-makers and the general public readily acknowledge that the best contribution of the Bank of Canada to the well-being of the country is to achieve a low and stable rate of inflation. The government re-iterated the importance of price stability in its recent renewal of the monetary policy framework with the Bank of Canada, as it is clear that abandoning the low-inflation regime would be detrimental to the economy of Ontario, just as it would be detrimental to the economy of all Canadian provinces and territories.
Partly as a result of COVID-related supply disruptions, inflation is currently higher than the roughly 2% average that has prevailed in recent decades. This is true in Canada and in many other countries around the globe. This is a matter of concern to the Bank of Canada and the government. However, most market observers around the world expect that the factors keeping inflation elevated will dissipate after a period of time. As a result, the Bank of Canada expects inflation to ease back and to reach its 2% target by late 2022. The Bank and the government remain committed to low and stable inflation and the 2% inflation target.

Question No. 77—
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to government analysis on the impact of the Bank of Canada's low inflation target on the Manitoba economy: (a) has the government done any projections on the impact of maintaining the low inflation target on Manitoba's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator; and (b) has the government done any projections on the impact of abandoning the low inflation target on Manitoba's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, policy-makers and the general public readily acknowledge that the best contribution of the Bank of Canada to the well-being of the country is to achieve a low and stable rate of inflation. The government reiterated the importance of price stability in its recent renewal of the monetary policy framework with the Bank of Canada, as it is clear that abandoning the low inflation regime would be detrimental to the economy of Manitoba, just as it would be detrimental to the economy of any other Canadian province or territory.
Admittedly, as a result of COVID-related supply disruptions, inflation is currently higher than what we were accustomed to over the last decade. This is true in Canada and in many other countries around the globe. This is a matter of concern to the Bank of Canada and the government. However, most market observers around the world view the factors keeping inflation elevated to be temporary. As a result, the Bank of Canada expects inflation to ease back and to reach its 2% target by late 2022. The bank and the government remain committed to low and stable inflation and are taking actions to ensure that the temporary forces pushing up prices do not become embedded in ongoing inflation.

Question No. 78—
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to government analysis on the impact of the Bank of Canada's low inflation target on the Alberta economy: (a) has the government done any projections on the impact of maintaining the low inflation target on Alberta's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator; and (b) has the government done any projections on the impact of abandoning the low inflation target on Alberta's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, policy-makers and the general public readily acknowledge that the best contribution of the Bank of Canada to the well-being of the country is to achieve a low and stable rate of inflation. The government reiterated the importance of price stability in its recent renewal of the monetary policy framework with the Bank of Canada, as it is clear that abandoning the low-inflation regime would be detrimental to the Alberta economy, just as it would be detrimental to the economy of any other Canadian province or territory.
Admittedly, as a result of COVID-related supply disruptions, inflation is currently higher than what we were accustomed to over the last decade. This is true in Canada and in many other countries around the globe. This is a matter of concern to the Bank of Canada and the government. However, most market observers around the world view the factors keeping inflation elevated to be temporary. As a result, the Bank of Canada expects inflation to ease back and to reach its 2% target by late 2022. The bank and the government remain committed to low and stable inflation and are taking actions to ensure that the temporary forces pushing up prices do not become embedded in ongoing inflation.

Question No. 82—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to the government's commitments on the completion of the Okanagan Rail Trail project and the federal Addition to Reserve (ATR) process for the Duck Lake Indian Reserve No. 7 (IR#7): (a) what is the status of the ATR to Duck Lake IR#7 of former CN Rail land; (b) what are the exact areas of negotiation which have and have not been resolved to complete the ATR; (c) how many meetings or briefings has the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or the Minister of Indigenous Services had regarding the Okanagan Rail Trail project or the ATR to Duck Lake IR#7 since November 20, 2019, and what are the details of each meeting or briefing, including dates; (d) when was the last communication by the government to Duck Lake IR#7 or the Okanagan Indian Band regarding the ATR; and (e) what is the estimated timeline for the completion of the ATR?
Response
Mr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, and its Special Operating Agency of Indian Oil and Gas Canada are concerned, the response is as follows. With regard to part (a), ISC continues to support the Okanagan Indian Band with the addition to the reserve of the former CN Rail corridor lands bisecting Duck Lake Indian Reserve 7. CN Rail is currently the registered owner of the lands in fee simple, and Canada has provided CN with a draft agreement of purchase and sale to support the transfer of lands to Canada for the use and benefit of the band.
With regard to part (b), the Okanagan Indian Band continues to work to resolve third party interests, including property rights required by telecommunications providers, electrical transmission and distribution services, sewer utility interests and access agreements for on-reserve developments. Canada has offered to support the band with their negotiations; however, assistance has not been requested. The band has the support of legal and technical experts working to satisfy addition-to-reserve, or ATR, requirements.
With regard to part (c), government officials engage with the Okanagan Indian Band on a biweekly basis in an effort to satisfy remaining ATR requirements for resolution of third-party interests. There have been no meetings or briefings on this project with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or the Minister of ISC.
ISC does not attend meetings and does not receive briefings of the Okanagan Indian Band’s participation on the Okanagan rail trail project. Once the ATR is completed, it will be up to the band to determine the intended use of the lands.
With regard to part (d), the last communication between ISC and the Okanagan Indian Band regarding the ATR was November 19, 2021.
With regard to part (e), it is difficult to estimate timelines for completion, as completion of the ATR is subject to the readiness and willingness of third party interest holders to negotiate federal replacement interests.

Question No. 85—
Mr. Marc Dalton:
With regard to government analysis of the impact of the Bank of Canada's low inflation target on the British Columbia economy: (a) has the government done any projections on the impact of maintaining the low inflation target on British Columbia's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator; and (b) has the government done any projections on the impact of abandoning the low inflation target on British Columbia's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, policy-makers and the general public readily acknowledge that the best contribution of the Bank of Canada to the well-being of the country is to achieve a low and stable rate of inflation. The government reiterated the importance of price stability in its recent renewal of the monetary policy framework with the Bank of Canada, as it is clear that abandoning the low inflation regime would be detrimental to the economy of British Columbia, just as it would be detrimental to the economy of any other Canadian province or territory.
Admittedly, as a result of COVID-related supply disruptions, inflation is currently higher than what we were accustomed to over the last decade. This is true in Canada and in many other countries around the globe. This is a matter of concern to the Bank of Canada and the government. However, most market observers around the world view the factors keeping inflation elevated to be temporary. As a result, the Bank of Canada expects inflation to ease back and to reach its 2% target by late 2022. The bank and the government remain committed to low and stable inflation and are taking actions to ensure that the temporary forces pushing up prices do not become embedded in ongoing inflation.

Question No. 88—
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy" plan from Environment and Climate Change Canada, specifically where it states that “the government will also set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers”: how was the 30% target decided upon, and when did the department make its final decision?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the target was developed based on scientific literature and internal analysis that points to the potential for optimizing nitrogen fertilizer use with an accompanying reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining or increasing yield. The reduction percentage of 30% was the result of an iterative process weighing various factors and characteristics, such as whether it was ambitious in considering climate goals and international efforts, whether it was technically achievable because technologies and know-how largely exist, whether it was economically feasible as a result of potential cost savings and increased yield through efficiency gains and better management, and whether it was scientifically defensible as supported by research findings relevant to Canadian context.
The target was finalized in fall 2020 ahead of the release of the “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy" plan.

Question No. 89—
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy” plan from Environment and Climate Change Canada, specifically where it states that “the government will also set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers”: has any government department, agency, Crown corporation or government entity conducted a study on how this policy will affect either (i) Canada’s agricultural production, (ii) the food supply in Canada, (iii) Canada’s contribution to the global food supply via exports, and, if so, what were the findings of the studies?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the fertilizer target was developed based on scientific literature and internal analysis that points to the potential for optimizing nitrogen fertilizer use with an accompanying reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, while maintaining or increasing yield. The reduction percentage of 30% was the result of an iterative process weighing various factors and characteristics, such as whether it was ambitious in considering climate goals and international efforts, whether it was technically achievable because technologies and know-how largely exist, whether it was economically feasible as a result of potential cost savings and increased yield through efficiency gains and better management, and whether it was scientifically defensible as supported by research findings relevant to Canadian context.

Question No. 90—
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy” plan from Environment and Climate Change Canada, specifically where it states that “the government will also set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers”: has any government department, agency, Crown corporation or government entity conducted a study on how this policy will affect the Saskatchewan economy regarding (i) reduced crop yields, (ii) fewer jobs in agriculture, including agri-retail, canola crushing plants, farms, and, if so, what were the findings of the studies?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has not conducted a study regarding the impact of the target on Saskatchewan’s economy.

Question No. 93—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s pledge to lower oil and gas emissions: what is the projected loss of (i) jobs, (ii) federal tax revenue from the province of Alberta and the federal government for the year 2022 as a result of the pledge?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada have initiated engagements with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, industry, and other Canadians. These discussions will take place over winter and spring 2022 and will help inform the design of the approach to implementing the Prime Minister’s commitment to cap and reduce total emissions from the oil and gas sector to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Until the measure has been designed, it is premature to estimate economic impacts.
Assuming that the measure will include regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a regulatory impact analysis statement will be prepared and published in the Canada Gazette. A regulatory impact analysis statement provides information regarding the costs and benefits of the regulations as well as other information, such as who will be affected, who was consulted in developing the regulations, and how the government will evaluate and measure the performance of the regulations against objectives.

Question No. 94—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the 4.7% rise in the Consumer Price Index over the last year and future inflation: (a) what are the government’s estimates on the added increase the rise has had on trucking costs; and (b) what are the government’s estimates and projections for the next 12 months on the increase in food prices as a result of the added trucking costs?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in Canada, consumer price inflation is calculated using the consumer price index, or CPI, which measures the price level for a representative basket of goods and services purchased at the consumer level. This basket of goods and services includes consumer prices for items ranging from groceries to operating a vehicle and taking public transportation. Increases in total inflation means a higher cost of living for consumers. This, in turn, reduces the purchasing power of households, which can lead to reduced real consumer spending and ultimately lower economic activity more broadly.
The Government of Canada does not estimate the effects of CPI inflation on trucking costs, nor are there CPI data specifically on trucking costs. Moreover, trucking costs are more likely to be linked to commercial or producer prices, as opposed to retail or consumer prices, on which the CPI data are based.
With regard to (b), the Government of Canada does not have estimates of the impact of trucking costs on projections of consumer prices. As noted above, CPI data on trucking costs are not available. Of note, many other costs influence food prices, including agriculture prices, manufacturing and processing costs, and distribution costs for modes of transportation beyond trucking.
According to the Economic and Fiscal Update 2021, which was released by the Department of Finance Canada on December 14, 2021, private sector economists expect total CPI inflation to be 3.3% in 2021 and 3.1% in 2022. By 2023, inflation is expected to return to within the 1% to 3% inflation control range of the Bank of Canada and to have essentially returned to the 2% inflation target by 2024.

Question No. 96—
Mr. Jake Stewart:
With regard to government analysis on the impact of the Bank of Canada's low inflation target on the New Brunswick economy: (a) has the government done any projections on the impact of maintaining the low inflation target on New Brunswick's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator; and (b) has the government done any projections on the impact of abandoning the low inflation target on New Brunswick's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, policy-makers and the general public readily acknowledge that the best contribution of the Bank of Canada to the well-being of the country is to achieve a low and stable rate of inflation. The government reiterated the importance of price stability in its recent renewal of the monetary policy framework with the Bank of Canada, as it is clear that abandoning the low inflation regime would be detrimental to the economy of New Brunswick, just as it would be detrimental to the economy of any other Canadian province or territory.
Admittedly, as a result of COVID-related supply disruptions, inflation is currently higher than what we were accustomed to over the last decade. This is true in Canada and in many other countries around the globe. This is a matter of concern to the Bank of Canada and the government. However, most market observers around the world view the factors keeping inflation elevated to be temporary. As a result, the Bank of Canada expects inflation to ease back and to reach its 2% target by late 2022. The bank and the government remain committed to low and stable inflation and are taking actions to ensure that the temporary forces pushing up prices do not become embedded in ongoing inflation.

Question No. 102—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to government analysis on the impact of the Bank of Canada's low inflation target on the Saskatchewan economy: (a) has the government done any projections on the impact of maintaining the low inflation target on Saskatchewan's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator; and (b) has the government done any projections on the impact of abandoning the low inflation target on Saskatchewan's economy, and, if so, what are the results of such projections, broken down by economic indicator?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, policy-makers and the general public readily acknowledge that the best contribution of the Bank of Canada to the well-being of the country is to achieve a low and stable rate of inflation. The government reiterated the importance of price stability in its recent renewal of the monetary policy framework with the Bank of Canada, as it is clear that abandoning the low-inflation regime would be detrimental to the economy of Saskatchewan, just as it would be detrimental to the economy of any other Canadian province or yerritory.
Admittedly, as a result of COVID-related supply disruptions, inflation is currently higher than what we were accustomed to over the last decade. This is true in Canada and in many other countries around the globe. This is a matter of concern to the Bank of Canada and the government. However, most market observers around the world view the factors keeping inflation elevated to be temporary. As a result, the Bank of Canada expects inflation to ease back and to reach its 2% target by late 2022. The bank and the government remain committed to low and stable inflation and are taking actions to ensure that the temporary forces pushing up prices do not become embedded in ongoing inflation.

Question No. 114—
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to government litigation related to non-compliance of contractual obligations, which has been commenced or has been ongoing since January 1, 2020, related to contracts signed by the government: (a) how many contracts are the subject of litigation; and (b) what are the details of each contract involved in the litigation, including the (i) date, (ii) description of the goods or services, including the volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of the vendor, (vi) litigation court?
Response
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the number of litigation files and quantity of information that could fall within the scope of the question, as well as the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. It was concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require that hundreds of files be reviewed manually and that relevant information, if any, be extracted on a case-by-case basis, which is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No. 116—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to the Fraser Salmon Collaborative Management Agreement: (a) have any environmental assessments been done on how this agreement has impacted BC salmon stocks since the agreement became effective in July 2019, and, if so, what are the details, including the date the assessments were conducted and the findings; (b) what negative impacts have been found by government studies or assessments related to the agreement and what specific actions has the government taken to reduce or reverse these negative impacts, if any; and (c) does the agreement usurp any Department of Fisheries and Oceans regulations related to the salmon stock and, if so, which regulations?
Response
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Fraser Salmon Collaborative Management Agreement, the “agreement”, was signed in July 2019 by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, DFO, and the president of the Fraser Salmon Management Council, FSMC, on behalf of 76 signatory first nations from the Fraser River watershed. The agreement was the result of over three years of negotiations and over a decade of foundational work by DFO and first nations, and provides a framework for the co-management of Fraser River salmon between DFO and the FSMC.
The agreement creates, promotes and supports government-to-government, nation-to-nation structures for collaboration, governance, management and conservation of Fraser River salmon. The agreement provides a framework for tier-2 decision-making by DFO and the FSMC via the Fraser Salmon Management Board, FSMB.
The FSMB has been meeting monthly since January 2020 to develop the FSMB’s annual work plan, which is the key document that guides the work of the parties and implementation of the agreement in an incremental manner. The FSMB’s inaugural annual work plan for the 2021-22 fiscal year was approved in March 2021, and the parties have been working to advance shared priorities identified in the annual work plan since then.
Since DFO and the FSMC entered into the agreement, there have been no environmental assessments on British Columbia, B.C., salmon stocks with the specific goal of assessing any impacts of the agreement on B.C. salmon stocks. While there have been no assessments specific to the potential impacts of the agreement, DFO does carry out a wide variety of scientific activities to monitor and assess B.C. salmon stocks on an ongoing basis. These activities include monitoring abundance, harvest rates, ocean survival and other aspects of these salmon populations.
The agreement is clear that existing authorities of the minister and first nations are not fettered. Sub-section 2.1(b) of the agreement states that the agreement is intended to “support the collaborative exercise by DFO and the Member Nations of their respective decision making authorities, responsibilities, laws and jurisdictions as they relate to Fraser Salmon.” Further, sub-section 2.2(a), item (v), states that the parties agree that the agreement “does not oblige the Parties, including the Minister, the FSMC and the Member Nations, to act in a manner inconsistent with their legislative or regulatory jurisdictions or authorities, or their laws, customs and traditions.” Therefore, no DFO regulations related to salmon stocks are usurped.

Question No. 117—
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline and the government’s invocation of the 1977 treaty: (a) what timeline has been conveyed by the United States to Canada regarding when (i) the federal case will be heard, (ii) a final decision is expected; and (b) what is the timeline for any parallel action that the government is taking with regards to negotiations with the United States to ensure that Michigan’s attempt to shut down the pipeline is unsuccessful?
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. With respect to part (a), there are currently two “federal cases” in the U.S. federal District Court for Western Michigan in relation to Line 5. The litigants in both cases are Enbridge and the State of Michigan, not the United States Government, nor the Government of Canada. Therefore, Canada is not in a position to comment on timelines regarding when these cases will be heard or when final decisions are expected to be handed down by the presiding judge.
With respect to part (b), on October 4, 2021, in response to the State of Michigan’s November 2020 order to shut down Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac, Canada invoked article IX(1), the negotiation clause of the dispute settlement mechanism of the 1977 Canada-U.S. Transit Pipelines treaty. Invoking dispute settlement triggers formal negotiations under the treaty with the U.S. We have consistently supported the continued, safe operation of Line 5, and raised it with the U.S. government at every level. Line 5 represents a critical part of Canada’s energy infrastructure and economy.

Question No. 119—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to requests from First Nations, Metis and Inuit communities for the identification of undocumented and unmarked burial sites, mass graves, cemeteries, or individual remains at former Indian Residential Schools since November 1, 2015, broken down by year and category of request: (a) how many requests for funding have been made; (b) how many requests in (a) were provided for the funding requested; (c) how many requests in (a) were partially funded; (d) how many requests in (a) were denied funding; (e) what is the total amount of funds dedicated to these requests that have not yet been met; (f) what is the average number of days for processing applications in (a); and (g) broken down by date and attendees, with which Nations, communities, or their representatives, have the ministers of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Indigenous Services consulted?
Response
Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is concerned, the response is as follows: Thousands of children were sent to residential schools and never returned home to their families and communities. The families were often provided with little to no information on the circumstances of their loved ones who had gone missing or had died, or the location of their burial. The loss of children who attended residential schools is unthinkable and we must ensure that all Canadians know how this terrible policy is affecting families and communities today.
Canada remains committed to supporting survivors, their families and communities through their healing journeys and is supporting communities by providing funding to create a historic record of children who died at residential schools, locate their final resting places, and commemorate and memorialize these lost loved ones.
On August 10, 2021, the Government of Canada announced additional funding to enhance support for indigenous peoples and communities as they continue to respond to and heal from the intergenerational trauma of residential schools. Approximately $320 million in additional support was dedicated to indigenous-led, survivor-centric and culturally informed initiatives and investments to help indigenous communities respond to and heal from the ongoing impacts of residential schools.
Of this funding, $83 million supplements existing investments for community-led processes to research and locate burial sites as well as to commemorate and memorialize the children who died at residential schools. These resources are in addition to the funding provided in budget 2019, bringing the Government of Canada's commitment to support this important work to $116.8 million.
Within the time frame selected, 73 funding requests were received to conduct work at 99 Indian residential school locations. To date, 21 requests have been approved, valued at just over $36 million, which cover work at 19 Indian residential school locations. Seven applications are close to final funding decisions, while 43 applications are still undergoing review or refinements in collaboration with indigenous communities and organizations.
In August 2021, the program initiated service standards for acknowledging new applications, at 24 hours; for application triage, at 24 hours; and for establishing an initial contact, at 48 hours after acknowledgement. These service standards are being consistently achieved. However, the average timeline to refine and finalize an application can vary greatly depending on the complexity of the proposal. Some projects cover a single site, while others target an entire province or territory. In addition, currently 25 applications have overlapping field investigation requests.
Indigenous communities wishing to accomplish work at an Indian residential school site or engagement within their community will be supported by Canada. Through their funding resource requests, communities outline their anticipated financial needs and priorities. Departmental officials review activities and expenses to ensure they are eligible under the existing authorities. Departmental officials, working with their colleagues from other departments, provide a whole-of-government approach to supporting communities in advancing this work and to leveraging the programs and funding authorities at our disposal. The applicants’ identified readiness to undertake this important work also determines when funds are to be dispensed.
To avoid duplication in funding for any given site, communities are encouraged to take an inclusive approach with other communities impacted by the Indian residential school location. Requests may include funding to support these collaborative approaches, coordination and participation from multiple communities. Canada continues to work with indigenous communities and organizations to provide the necessary support as quickly as possible.
Both the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Indigenous Services as well as their offices work closely with indigenous communities or their representatives on this delicate matter. As events are unfolding at a rapid pace, any reporting of possible meetings or of the topics discussed risks providing incomplete or misleading information. However, ministerial meeting notes are made publicly available on open.canada.ca.

Question No. 135—
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to pharmaceutical drugs, treatments and therapies authorized by Health Canada since January 1, 2020: (a) how many pharmaceutical drugs (or new drug submissions) were granted authorization; (b) what are the details of each drug in (a), including the (i) name of the drug, (ii) date of the approval, (iii) purpose of the drug, including the disease or condition treated by drug; and (c) of the pharmaceutical drugs listed in (b), how many and which ones were for treatments or therapies for rare diseases, known as orphan drugs?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada is committed to openness and transparency. Information related to approved drugs, their date of approval, their approved indication, including how many and which ones were for rare diseases, is available both in annual highlights reports, available at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/highlights-reports.html, and in databases that are updated in real time: the notice of compliance database, https://health-products.canada.ca/noc-ac/index-eng.jsp, and the drug product database, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/drug-product-database.html. These databases are an important part of Health Canada’s open data assets, and are listed accordingly on the Government of Canada’s open data portal, https://open.canada.ca/en/open-data.

Question No. 138—
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to payments made to individuals through the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) or the Canada Recover Benefit (CRB), and broken down by each program: (a) how many individuals received their payments via (i) direct deposit, (ii) a paper cheque; (b) of the individuals who received their payments via a paper cheque, how many were mailed to an address outside of Canada; (c) how many of the paper cheques were counter-signed or cashed by a third party; (d) what specific action was taken by the government to ensure that money in the cheques cashed in (c) went to the intended individuals; (e) approximately how many cases of CERB or CRB fraud is the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) aware of involving paper cheques; (f) what specific action is CRA taking to investigate the cases in (e) and recover the money; and (g) how much money has been recovered to date, as a result of the efforts outlined in (f)?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), please note that this part of the response refers to applications processed and payments issued for the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, and the Canada recovery benefit, CRB. These numbers represent CRA CERB and CRB information.
The CERB was open to application between March 15 and September 26, 2020, and applicants could retroactively apply until December 2, 2020. As of May 2, 2021, there were 22,653,848 applications processed.
The CRB was open to application between September 27, 2020 and November 20, 2021, and applicants could retroactively apply until December 22, 2021. As of December 4, 2021, there were 29,824,974 applications processed
With regard to part (a)(i), 84% of the CERB payments were issued by direct deposit i.e., 19,029,232, and 90% of the CRB payments were issued by direct deposit, i.e., 26,842,476.
With regard to part (a)(ii), 16% of the CERB payments were issued by cheque, i.e., 3,624,615, and 10% of the CRB payments were issued by cheque, i.e., 2,982,498.
Please note that the distribution by payment method is based upon the payments issued and not unique applicants.
With regard to parts (b), (c) and (d), the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested.
With regard to part (e), the CRA is committed to ensuring that individuals receive only the benefits to which they are entitled, while protecting the integrity of the COVID-19 support program. In terms of the verification of suspicious activity, the analysis and review work is ongoing.
At this time, the CRA is continuing its work to determine the number of suspicious claims of CERB or CRB that have occurred, regardless of the method of payment used, cheques or direct deposit. Due to the sensitive and evolving nature of the work, the CRA cannot disclose the number of cases currently under investigation nor details about the different payment methods used for these benefits.
With regard to part (f), several measures have been put in place to prevent identity theft, and the CRA continues to closely monitor any activity that may be suspicious.
The CRA takes the protection of taxpayer information very seriously. In this regard, measures are in place to identify suspicious activities related to taxpayer accounts and to identify and prevent high-risk or potentially suspicious claims related to COVID-19 support programs. As soon as the CRA detects a suspicious transaction, or when it is notified of an alleged incident of identity theft, it conducts an in-depth review, and contacts the potential victims to inform them of the incident and to restore the information in their files. Where appropriate, the CRA works with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, financial institutions and local police to investigate the incident.
The CRA is committed to ensuring that individuals receive only the benefits to which they are entitled, while protecting the integrity of the CERB and CRB programs. As with other benefits administered by the CRA, it will take steps at a later time to verify that claimants were eligible to receive payments for any of the new COVID-related economic measures. The purpose of these reviews is to confirm that individuals are authenticated and eligible for the benefits they receive. However, the CRA does not release specific information related to its review strategies, as releasing this information could jeopardize its compliance activities and the integrity of Canada’s tax system.
With regard to part (g), the CRA’s analysis and review work in terms suspicious, eligible and ineligible benefit claims, and the amounts that must be returned to the CRA, is still ongoing.
Dealing with complex cases may require several months of review and verification. The CRA combines advanced data analytics and business intelligence gathered from many sources, including law enforcement agencies and financial institutions, to support these efforts. In some cases, the CRA asks taxpayers to provide documents and information that will need to be authenticated before they can continue with their applications. In other cases, the CRA will identify suspicious transactions and take other preventative measures before lifting account restrictions and releasing any payments.
Therefore, the CRA is unable at this time to provide the number of suspicious claims related to the COVID-19 support programs nor the amounts associated with them.

Question No. 141—
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the government's purchase of supplemental F-18 aircrafts from Australia: (a) what is the total number of such aircrafts that have been purchased to date; (b) of the aircrafts in (a), how many were (i) flyable, (ii) unflyable; (c) how many of the flyable aircrafts are still currently operational; and (d) what is the total amount that has been spent to date on purchasing the aircrafts?
Response
Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, National Defence is taking concrete steps to ensure that the Royal Canadian Air Force can protect North American airspace and continue to fulfill Canada’s NORAD and NATO commitments.
That is why the Government of Canada launched the interim fighter capability project to procure 18 F-18 Hornet fighter aircraft from Australia with the option to acquire up to seven additional non-flyable aircraft that can be used for testing, training aids or spare parts.
This project will ensure Canadian fighter jet capability is maintained as National Defence moves toward acquiring 88 advanced fighter aircraft to replace its current fleet of CF-18 Hornet aircraft.
Transfer of the Australian F-18s to Canada began with the delivery of the first aircraft on February 21, 2019, and was completed by May 2021.
Once delivered to Canada, National Defence conducts a detailed inspection of each aircraft and proceeds with the modifications and upgrades necessary to integrate the aircraft to Canada’s existing fleet of CF-18s. This work ensures that these aircraft will be available to supplement the current fleet of CF-18s until the advanced future fighter aircraft is procured.
With regard to parts (a) and (b) (i) and (ii), Canada has purchased a total of 20 F-18 Hornet aircraft. Eighteen aircraft are deemed flyable and will be integrated into service. Two aircraft are deemed non-flyable and were purchased for spare parts to ensure the long-term capability of the fleet until a permanent fleet is fully operational.
With regard to part (c), six aircraft are currently operational. The remaining 12 are undergoing inspections and modifications in preparation to be released into service.
National Defence will continue to integrate the Australian F-18 Hornet aircraft into Royal Canadian Air Force service at regular intervals, until the final aircraft is integrated by December 2022.
With regard to part (d), the total direct cost that has been spent to date on purchasing the 20 aircraft is $127.4 million.

Question No. 150—
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to government statistics on labour shortages: how many unfilled jobs are there currently in each of the job sectors identified in the North American Industry Classification System, broken down by province or territory and by region?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the job vacancy and wage survey, JVWS, provides comprehensive data on job vacancies by industrial sector for Canada and the provinces, territories and economic regions.
Data for Canada, the provinces and territories are released quarterly in the following publicly available table: Statistics Canada, Job Vacancy and Wage Survey, Table 14-10-0326-01, job vacancies, payroll employees, job vacancy rate by industry sector, Canada, provinces and territories, quarterly, unadjusted for seasonality.
Note that because of the COVID-19 pandemic, data collection for the job vacancy and wage survey was suspended for the second and third quarters of 2020.
Detailed information is available in The Daily, job vacancies, third quarter 2021, released on December 20, 2021. Data on job vacancies from the job vacancy and wage survey for the fourth quarter of 2021 will be released on March 22, 2022.
More information about the concepts and use of data from the job vacancy and wage survey is available online in the Guide to the Job Vacancy and Wage Survey, catalogue number 75-514-G.

Question No. 155—
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the carbon emissions related to the Canadian delegation's, led by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, travel to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow: (a) what is the government's estimate on the amount of carbon emissions or carbon footprint related to the delegation's (i) flights to and from the event, (ii) other emissions; (b) did the government purchase any carbon offsets related to the trip, and if so, what was the total amount spent on carbon offsets; and (c) what are the details of any carbon offset purchases related to the trip, including (i) date of purchase, (ii) amount spent, (iii) amount of carbon emissions the purchase was intended to offset, (iv) vendor?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, departments and agencies that generate greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions in excess of one kilotonne per year from air travel have been required since 2019-20 to contribute annually to the greening government fund, GGF, www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/greening-government/greening-gov-fund.html. They have been charged a TBS-set fee based on the average total annual air travel emissions of that organization over the previous three years.

Question No. 157—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to individuals who received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and were later deemed ineligible and have been ordered by the government to repay the benefit: (a) how many individuals are at or below the low-income after tax threshold, and of those individuals, (i) how many live in deep poverty as defined as below 40% of adjusted median income, (ii) how many will have other income benefits reduced this year based on an increased 2020 income due to receipt of the CERB; (b) what are the demographics, including the (i) family type, (ii) province or territory of residence, (iii) gender, (iv) disability, if any, (v) any other available demographic data in relation to these individuals; and (c) which federal benefits will be reduced based on increased 2020 income due to receipt of the CERB?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CRA has not required any individuals to repay any of the emergency or recovery benefits, and no repayment deadline has been established. Therefore, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested.
In cases where the CRA, through its review activities, has determined that an applicant is ineligible, the CRA contacts the applicant to advise of the decision and the eligibility criteria that were not met. The CRA also informs the applicant that if they have received a benefit payment to which they were not eligible, they will eventually need to repay the amount.

Question No. 158—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Veterans Bill of Rights: (a) is it covered in employee training at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC); (b) are violations tracked by VAC and, if so, if there is a violation, are VAC employees required or authorized to (i) inform the client, (ii) direct the client to the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, (iii) conduct a follow-up with the client to ensure the issue has been resolved; and (c) if the response in (a) or (b) is negative, what is the rationale for leaving it out?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Veterans Bill of Rights is an expression of the rights veterans have long identified as important. It is a comprehensive declaration of rights for all war-service veterans, veterans and serving members of the Canadian Forces, both regular and reserve, members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, spouses, common-law partners, survivors and primary caregivers, other eligible dependants and family members, and other eligible clients.
The Veterans Bill of Rights was developed in consultation with veterans' organizations to strengthen Veterans Affairs Canada’s ability to respond quickly and fairly to the concerns of veterans. It sets out the rights of veterans and clients in accessing Veterans Affairs Canada’s programs and services. It is a clear and concise statement that Veterans Affairs Canada will continue to make sure every one of its clients is treated with respect, dignity and fairness.
The rights are as follows: be treated with respect, dignity, fairness and courtesy; take part in discussions that involve you and your family; have someone with you for support when you deal with Veterans Affairs; receive clear, easy-to-understand information about our programs and services, in English or French, as set out in the Official Languages Act; have your privacy protected as set out in the Privacy Act; and receive benefits and services as set out in Veterans Affairs Canada’s published service standards and know your appeal rights.
Veterans Affairs Canada provides mandatory training for all its staff on the Values and Ethics of the Public Service, which addresses the Government of Canada’s approach to respect for people and dignity.
The national orientation and training program for frontline field operations staff, while not specific to the Veterans Bill of Rights, provides core training elements for Veterans Affairs Canada employees who work directly with veterans, and promotes care, compassion and respect.
All employees complete a Canadian Forces for civilians course that addresses key components of serving veterans with integrity and respect.
All employees are required to take security training, which covers topics that include privacy protection set out in the Privacy Act. As part of Veterans Affairs Canada’s onboarding process for new employees, employees receive “Privacy 101” training, which provides an overview of privacy principles required to work within privacy compliance. This includes the handling of personal information; the “need to know principle” of accessing only the personal information needed to fulfill the duties of an employee’s role; and what constitutes a privacy breach, and how to avoid privacy breaches.

Question No. 159—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Minister of Seniors meetings related to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) since October 26, 2021: (a) broken down by date, what consultations and meetings has the Minister of Seniors attended or planned to attend to discuss GIS clawbacks; and (b) of the consultations in (a), which organizations, ministers, corporations, or individuals attended those meetings?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the Economic and Fiscal Update 2021, the Government of Canada announced that it proposes to provide up to $742.4 million for one-time payments to alleviate the financial hardship of the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, and allowance recipients who received the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, or the Canada recovery benefit, CRB, in 2020. The government will continue to investigate ways to limit potential benefit reductions for vulnerable seniors who received emergency and recovery benefits.
The Minister of Seniors was appointed on October 26, 2021. Between October 26, 2021 and December 17, 2021, there were no formal consultation processes launched regarding this matter.
The Minister of Seniors has met with stakeholders, constituents, ministers and members of Parliament on a range of topics of interest to seniors, gathering a broad range of feedback on the views and issues of importance to them.

Question No. 163—
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the impact of border closure and border restrictions related to COVID-19 on the hunting and outfitter tourism industry: (a) what are the government's estimates on the loss of revenue for the hunting and outfitter tourism industry during the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) what specific measures will Destination Canada take to promote hunting and outfitter tourism to an international audience as part of tourism recovery; (c) how much has been budgeted by Destination Canada to promote hunting and outfitter tourism as part of tourism recovery; and (d) what are the details related to how the promotional money in (c) will be spent, including a breakdown by type of advertising and which international markets the advertisement will target?
Response
Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, estimates or projections as to the impact of a specific public health measure on this specific portion of the industry are not measured. While Destination Canada continues to promote Canada as a safe destination of choice for visitors with a variety of interests, it has not set aside funds solely for hunting and outfitter tourism promotion.

Question No. 166—
Mr. Frank Caputo:
With regard to complaints from veterans that Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) area and regional offices have been closed to in person visits, assistance, and assessments since the COVID-19 pandemic began: (a) which VAC regional offices are currently open to in person visits from veterans; (b) what is the timeline for when each VAC regional office currently not open to in person visits will reopen to veterans for in person visits; (c) broken down by regional office, and as of December 6, 2021, what percentage of staff who work directly with veterans are working (i) remotely, (ii) from the regional office; and (d) what is the timeline for when the staff who normally work directly with veterans from the regional office, but have been working remotely during the pandemic, will return to work in the regional office, broken down by office?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Veterans Affairs Canada continues to serve veterans and their families by phone, online and face to face using Microsoft Teams. In addition to regular services, Veterans Affairs Canada has reached out to 18,835 vulnerable clients since the beginning of the pandemic.
With regard to part (b), the health, safety and well-being of veterans and their families, as well as Veterans Affairs Canada employees, is the priority of Veterans Affairs Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Essentially, all Veterans Affairs Canada employees are equipped to work remotely, enabling Veterans Affairs Canada to continue to provide services to veterans and their families in the midst of this global pandemic.
Veterans Affairs Canada will continue to take guidance from public health officials and work with its partners across government to support easing restrictions in a gradual, phased and controlled manner that prioritizes the health and safety of employees and those accessing services at departmental buildings. Veterans and their families are still accessing Veterans Affairs Canada programs and services. Veterans Affairs Canada staff are available, working remotely and prioritizing getting benefits to veterans in greatest need.
With regard to part (c), due to the ongoing pandemic situation across the country, all staff who work directly with veterans are working remotely.
With regard to part (d), Veterans Affairs Canada continuously monitors local health situations with a view to returning to offices when and where it is safe to do so. In the meantime, Veterans Affairs Canada continues to provide services virtually. Its priority remains the health, safety and well-being of clients and employees.

Question No. 168—
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman:
With regard to seniors having their Guaranteed Income Supplements (GIS) reduced or cut after receiving payments under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) or the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB): (a) how many seniors have had their GIS payments cut or reduced, or received notice of a GIS cut or reduction, as a result of receiving income associated with CERB or CRB; (b) what is the average amount that the seniors in (a) had their GIS payments reduced by; and (c) does the government accept the assessment from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that 88,222 low-income seniors will see GIS reductions because of pandemic benefits, and, if not, what is the government's assessment of the number of low-income seniors?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the number of guaranteed income supplement, GIS, recipients who received payments from the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB and/or the Canada recovery benefit, CRB, in 2020, and who experienced a reduction or loss in GIS benefits in July 2021 when their entitlement to the GIS was reassessed, is 183,420.
Letters to all GIS recipients outlining their entitlement for the July 2021 to June 2022 payment period were sent starting on July 14, 2021.
With regard to part (b), the average reduction in GIS benefits experienced in July 2021, by the 183,420 GIS recipients in (a) above, is $294.15 per month or $3,529.85 per year.
With regard to part (c), Employment and Social Development Canada is not able to comment on the assessment undertaken by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
The number of GIS recipients who received payments from the CERB and/or the CRB in 2020, and who experienced a reduction in GIS benefits in July 2021 is estimated to be 100,710. This number does not include those GIS recipients who received payments from the CERB and/or the CRB in 2020, and who lost entitlement to the GIS in July 2021.

Question No. 171—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Department of Industry and the March 22, 2020, agreement to spend $200,451,621 for the purchase of ventilators from Thornhill Medical: (a) did the ventilators meet the Public Health Agency of Canada’s technical requirements, and, if not, who gave the authorization to proceed with the purchase and what was their reason; (b) how many ventilators were (i) ordered, (ii) delivered; (c) for each delivered ventilators in (b), (i) what day was it delivered, (ii) has the ventilator been used; and (d) for each time the ventilators in (c) have been used, (i) when were they used, (ii) where were they used, (iii) was it used to treat a patient with COVID-19, (iv) are they still in use today?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the ventilator model MOVES SLC, produced by Thornhill Medical, met the Public Health Agency of Canada’s technical and regulatory requirements.
With regard to part (b)(i), since March 22, 2020, 1,020 units were ordered. With regard to part (b)(ii), since March 22, 2020, 857 units were delivered.
With regard to part (c)(i), 731 units were delivered between April 27, 2020 and January 29, 2021, and an additional 126 units between August 19 and August 24, 2021. With regard to part (c)(ii), as of December 7, 2021, 59 units have been deployed to various jurisdictions across Canada.
With regard to part (d), Thornhill devices were sent across Canada to support COVID-19 response efforts. However, the Public Health Agency of Canada does not have specific details on the use of the deployed items following their allocation to jurisdictions.

Question No. 177—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate): (a) what are his mandate, roles and responsibilities; (b) to whom does he report; (c) what is his reporting relationship to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (styled the Government Representative in the Senate); (d) how does the parliamentary secretary's appointment support the government's commitment to support a more independent and non-partisan chamber; (e) in order to promote an independent and non-partisan chamber, is the parliamentary secretary expected to act in a non-partisan manner, including on his social media pages, such as Twitter, and, if not, why not; (f) was the Senate consulted on this appointment or the creation of this position, and, if so, what are the details, including the dates and person involved; (g) from what budget is his compensation as a parliamentary secretary paid; (h) has the parliamentary secretary received any support, financial or otherwise, from the Senate, such as office space, staff, expense allowances or other support, and, if so, what are the details; and (i) which ministerial or departmental budget is responsible for supporting the work of the parliamentary secretary?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, parliamentary secretaries are appointed under the Parliament of Canada Act to assist ministers. The act sets out the duties of parliamentary secretaries. They receive a salary in addition to their regular sessional and expense allowances as a member of Parliament, which is part of the total authorities provided to the House of Commons.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons supports the minister in relation to delivering on the various mandate letter commitments mandate letter commitments outlined by the Prime Minister. This includes facilitating the relationship with the Senate and the government’s legislative priorities, and work to update the Parliament of Canada Act to reflect the Senate’s non-partisan role.
The parliamentary secretary serves as liaison for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons with the government representative in the Senate, and does not receive support from the Senate.
The work of the parliamentary secretary is supported by the office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, which in turn receives support from the Privy Council Office.

Question No. 178—
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to government estimates related to energy consumption in Canada: (a) what is the approximate number and percentage of homes currently heated by sources of energy originating outside of Canada; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a), by (i) type of energy source (gas, coal, wind, hydroelectric, etc.), (ii) country of the energy source’s origin?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in 2019, NRCan estimated that approximately 30.4% of the total energy for heating, consumed by Canadian households, originated from outside of Canada. NRCan does not have information past 2019, as the data is still being collected and processed.
In response to (b)(i), the following indicates the approximate breakdown by source of household heating energy that originated from outside of Canada2 in 2019: electricity, 0.7%; natural gas, 29.7%; less than 0.1% crude and light fuel oil, which can include heading oil. Propane also serves as a heating fuel in rural and remote areas where natural gas is unavailable. However, the total energy that propane contributes towards heating is not tracked to the level of detail required for a comprehensive response.
In response to (b)(ii), Canada imports minimal amounts of electricity from the United States due to variability in regional supply and demand, and propane from the United States for rural and remote communities. Most of Canada’s natural gas imports is sourced from the United States and some from Trinidad and Tobago, and Angola. Canada imports negligible amounts of crude and light fuel oil, which can include heating oil, from various origins to meet Canadians’ heating needs. A further breakdown is unavailable by source country of origin as this information is not tracked to the level of detail required to provide a comprehensive response.

Question No. 179—
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to energy security: (a) how does the government define energy security; (b) by the definition in (a), is Canada currently energy secure; (c) how much energy did Canada store per year for the last 10 years; (d) what is Canada’s frequency of reliance on our stored energy, broken down by year over the last 10 years; and (e) what is the profile of Canada’s current energy storage, broken down by energy type (i.e. gas, coal, solar, etc.)?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada considers leading international indices assessing energy security.
In response to (b), Canada is one of the most energy secure countries in the world. In 2019, Canada was the sixth largest producer of primary energy in the world.
This is demonstrated in the Global Energy Institute’s annual publication, the International Energy Security Risk Index. Canada ranked third best in 2020 among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, countries for low energy risk. Canada also ranks first in the energy security metric rankings for fuel import metrics among the OECD.
In addition, the United Nations’ World Energy Council Trilemma Index ranked Canada sixth in national energy system performance among 127 countries. Canada was ranked first in the energy security metric given its ability to meet current and future energy demand and withstand and respond to supply shocks.
In response to (c), data regarding Canadian crude oil, liquefied petroleum gases and products, monthly inventories, including over the last 10 years, are publicly available from Statistics Canada.
In response to (d) and (e), Statistics Canada is evaluating the possibility of incorporating an annual or biannual question on storage capacity to existing refinery and midstream surveys. All stockpiled oil and gas in Canada are held by industry for commercial/operational purposes.

Question No. 183—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy: (a) which companies received payments through the subsidy; and (b) for each company in (a), what is the time period for which the subsidy was claimed?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, the response from the CRA is as follows: In response to parts (a) and (b), the Canada emergency wage subsidy, CEWS, registry can be used to search for employers who have received or will soon receive the CEWS: https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en. On that page there is a “View the full list of employers” function. The publication of this information is pursuant to an amendment to the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act, ITA. The registry provides the business name and the operating name where applicable for corporations and registered charities in receipt of the CEWS. Please note that the information on the registry provides current data which might extend beyond the date of the question, i.e., December 8, 2021.
The CEWS registry was developed taking into account the additional requirements of the Privacy Act insofar as a taxpayer’s personal information is concerned. As a result, the implementation of the registry, which displays only the legal and operating names of corporations and registered charities that are in receipt of the CEWS, balances providing transparency to Canadians while respecting the privacy of individuals. As such, sole proprietors, partnerships, or trusts that are not registered charities have been filtered out of the published population. Other information such as amounts received and period they applied is protected under the privacy provisions of the ITA.
Additional detailed CEWS statistics data can be found here at: CEWS claims – detailed data - Canada.ca (https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics/stats-detailed.html).

Question No. 185—
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the government’s timeline for establishing the 988 telephone line for emergency mental health services: (a) what is the government’s target for when the 988 telephone line will become operational in Canada; and (b) what is the government’s funding commitment towards the line for each of the next five years?
Response
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada understands the urgency of implementing this crisis line and the Public Health Agency of Canada is working to ensure we get its implementation right, including that it is able to connect people to the most appropriate support in the most appropriate way at the most appropriate time. We remain committed to implementing, and fully funding, a three digit mental health crisis and suicide prevention number.
The implementation of a three digit number for suicide crisis will also build upon the government's current support of the pan-Canadian suicide prevention service. The Public Health Agency of Canada is investing $21 million over five years, or $4.2 million per year, for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, with their partners, to implement and sustain this service. Through this initiative, people across Canada have access to crisis support in English and French 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days per year, using the technology of their choice: voice, text or online chat.

Question No. 194—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to the study, commissioned in part by the government, related to the dikes on the Isthmus of Chignecto, which was scheduled to be completed earlier this year and awarded to Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions: (a) was the study completed in February 2021, as per the original plan, and, if not, when was the study completed; (b) what were the findings of the study; (c) where can the public access the study's report, including the web location, if applicable; and (d) will the study's report be tabled in the House of Commons, and, if so, when?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the study was originally planned to be completed by March 31,2021, as per the contribution agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province of New Brunswick. COVID-19 related restrictions impacted data collection work and stakeholder engagements, resulting in the study being completed in June 2021.
In response to parts (b) and (c), the study provided three viable solutions that could be considered for the protection of the national trade corridor located in the Chignecto Isthmus. Transport Canada’s role is limited to making a financial contribution to the Province of New Brunswick. Transport Canada is neither a decision-maker nor an administrator to the study. Information related to the release of the study should be directed to the Province of New Brunswick’s project manager, Michael Pauley, at (506) 612-1141 or at Mike.Pauley@gnb.ca.
In response to part (d), there is no plan to table the study in the House of Commons as Transport Canada is not the study proponent.

Question No. 197—
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to requests made to the government under the Access to Information and Privacy Act (ATIP), and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what is the current average time between when an ATIP request is submitted and the document package is released to the individual or entity making the request; (b) how many requests made under ATIP are still being processed as of December 10, 2021; and (c) how many ATIPs still being processed were asked more than (i) 30 days, (ii) 60 days, (iii) 180 days, (iv) one year (v) two years, (vi) three years, (vii) five years ago?
Response
Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following is the response by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, TBS, on behalf of the Government of Canada. In response to (a), each fiscal year, TBS collects data on the number of requests received, completed, closed and responded to according to legislative timelines, 30 days; extensions taken, broken down by length of time taken, 30 days or less, 31 to 60 days, 61 to 120 days, 121 to 180 days, 181 to 365 days or more than 365 days; as well as the amount of time required to close requests, 0 to 30 days, 31 to 60 days, 61 to 120 days, or 121 days or more.
TBS publishes a summary of this information annually in the Access to Information and Privacy Statistical Report as well as datasets which 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.
Institutions also individually report this information to Parliament in their annual reports on the Access to Information Act and Privacy Acts, which institutions table in Parliament and publish online each fall.
In response to (b) and (c), the latest available data is for fiscal year 2020-2, April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. Data for fiscal year 2021-22 is expected to be collected by the end of September 2022 and published by December 31, 2022.

Question No. 210—
Mr. Frank Caputo:
With regard to caseworkers at Veterans Affairs Canada, since January 1, 2020: (a) how many caseworkers have (i) reported that their job has had a negative impact on their mental health, (ii) taken leave or days off related to stress or mental health concerns; (b) what has been the turnover rate for caseworkers, broken down by month; (c) what specific action has the ministry done to support the mental health of their caseworkers; (d) how many and what percentage of caseworkers are currently responsible for more than the standard of 30 veterans per caseworker; and (e) what are the minister's specific goals with regards to lowering the number of veterans per casework, including the specific targets as of (i) July 1, 2022, (ii) January 1, 2023?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs Canada provides case management services to support veterans facing complex challenges. It is a collaborative process between the client and the case management team to identify needs, set goals, and create a plan to help clients achieve their highest level of independence, health and well-being.
In response to (a), regarding how many caseworkers have (i) reported that their job has had a negative impact on their mental health, (ii) taken leave or days off related to stress or mental health concerns, while taking sick leave, employees do not need to stipulate the reasons for their absence. This data is not captured at Veterans Affairs Canada in order to protect employees’ privacy.
In response to (b), regarding the turnover rate for caseworkers broken down by month, the turnover rates are available by year, not by month. In 2019-20, the turnover rate was 12.8%, and in 2020-21, the turnover rate was 9.1%. For field operations employees, the average yearly turnover rate is 10%. For all Veterans Affairs Canada indeterminate positions, the average yearly turnover rate is 7.1%.
In response to (c), regarding what specific action the ministry has done to support the mental health of their caseworkers, Veterans Affairs Canada has increased its focus on employee wellness through local and national wellness committees as well as providing mental health training. Veterans Affairs Canada is implementing the case management renewal initiative until March 2022, which will create a more balanced delivery model and improve its processes and work tools to reduce the administrative burden for front-line staff. Veterans Affairs Canada implemented a new screening tool and a new case management assessment form, which improves case managers’ ability to identify veterans’ levels of risk, needs and complexities. Veterans Affairs Canada has improved its staffing and onboarding processes to accelerate and facilitate the recruitment of case managers, hiring additional case managers to improve the capacity to serve veterans. Veterans Affairs Canada is committed to continue hiring additional case managers, and to improve case management services to the benefit of both the veterans and the case managers.
In response to (d), regarding how many and what percentage of caseworkers are currently responsible for more than the standard of 30 veterans per caseworker, as of December 13, 2021, 70% of case managers have a caseload of more than 30 veterans, with the average caseload per case manager being 32.
In response to (e), regarding what the minister's specific goals are with regard to lowering the number of veterans per casework, including the specific targets as of July 1, 2022, and January 1, 2023, Veterans Affairs Canada remains committed to delivering high-quality case management services for veterans. Case management is a unique service that is based on the needs of each veteran. This means improving the overall approach is more than the case manager-to-veteran ratio.
Veterans Affairs Canada continues to improve tools and processes for staff to reduce the administrative burden and increase the time that case managers can spend directly with veterans.
While in the recent evaluation of case management service survey conducted in 2019, 92% of case managers responded that they were able to handle a caseload of more than 25 cases, Veterans Affairs Canada remains committed to achieving the 25:1 case manager-to-veteran published standard. As case management is based on need, and given the significant increase in veterans who require case management, Veterans Affairs Canada continues to work to improve and evaluate case management ratios.

Question No. 212—
Mrs. Rachael Thomas:
With regard to the Canada Greener Homes Grants program, as of December 13, 2021: (a) how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) approved by the government; (b) how many grants have been paid out; and (c) what is the total value of the grants paid?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on May 27, 2021, the Government of Canada launched the Canada greener homes grant program, a $2.6-billion initiative to enable up to 700,000 Canadian homeowners to apply for government funding to make retrofits to their homes. The program will help Canadians make their homes more comfortable and affordable to maintain, support Canada’s environmental objectives, and create good, local, middle-class jobs.
As of December 13, 2021, NRCan has approved 78,344 of the 126,316 applications submitted.
On a quarterly basis, NRCan will publish information related to the Canada greener homes grant program on Open Government: https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/.

Question No. 214—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Minister of Natural Resources' response in Question Period on December 2, 2021, regarding the government’s investment of $100 billion towards climate action: (a) broken down by department and fiscal year since 2015-16, what initiatives, projects, and funding streams has the funding been directed towards; (b) of the funding in (a), how much of the budget funding has been spent; and (c) of the funding in (a), how much funding has lapsed?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has committed over $100 billion with respect to climate action. The Government of Canada’s “Budget 2021 - A Healthy Environment for a Healthy Economy”, provides a breakdown of this commitment: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2021/04/budget-2021-a-healthy-environment-for-a-healthy-economy.html.

Question No. 220—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the government's calls on the Catholic Church to publish residential school records since June 2021: (a) broken down by date and form of correspondence, what requests has the government made to release residential school records; (b) of the requests in (a), (i) who was signatory to each form of correspondence, (ii) was the correspondence responded to; (c) of the requests in (a), what processes were established to include the input and guidance from (i) survivors and their families, (ii) First Nations, Metis and Inuit communities, (iii) the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation; and (d) of the requests in (a), which documents were requested by the government?
Response
Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is concerned, in response to part (a), the department pursued conversations about the sharing of documents through telephone calls and video conference with representatives of church organizations, as follows:
With respect to video conferences, on June 14, 2021, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Deputy Minister Quan-Watson and Assistant Deputy Minister Reiher met with the Most Reverend Richard Gagnon, Archbishop of Winnipeg and president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, CCCB, the Most Reverend Raymond Poisson, Bishop of St. Jerome and Mont Laurier and vice-president, CCCB, the Most Reverend Joseph Nguyen, Bishop of Kamloops, Monsignor Frank Leo, general secretary, CCCB, and Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir, Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc.
On November 17, 2021, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Deputy Minister Quan-Watson met with Bishop McGratten, vice-president, CCCB, the Most Reverend Raymond Poisson, vice-president, CCCB, Father Jean Vézina, general secretary, CCCB, and Jonathan Lesarge, government and public relations adviser, CCCB.
On November 26, 2021, Deputy Minister Quan-Watson and Assistant Deputy Minister Reiher met with Bishop McGratten, vice-president, Father Jean Vézina, general secretary, and Jonathan Lesarge, government and public relations adviser, CCCB.
With respect to telephone calls, on December 10, 2021, Mary Allin, A/Director, Resolution called the office of the Sisters of St. Ann to request a meeting concerning their document collection.
On December 13, 2021, Mary Allin and Erin Smith, legal counsel from the Department of Justice, met with Sister Marie Zarowny, president of the Sisters of St. Ann. Also present at the meeting were Katherine Stewart from the Sisters of St. Ann and Jody Sydor-Jones, a consultant working with the Sisters of St. Ann.
On January 7, 2022, Mary Allin called the office of the Sisters of Providence of Charity of Western Canada to request a meeting concerning the sharing of documents with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.
The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation was also provided with general information on Canada’s efforts to encourage the Catholic Church to share documents on various occasions.
In response to part (b)(i), participants in conversations are listed in part (a).
In response to part (b)(ii), verbal exchanges occurred in telephone conversations and video conferences.
In response to part (c)(i), N/A.
In response to part (c)(ii), N/A.
In response to part (c)(iii), over the course of various meetings and calls with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, including meetings on August 13 and December 21, 2021, the centre was provided with information on Canada’s efforts to encourage the Catholic Church to share documents. The centre also provided information concerning documents that it had received, or would soon receive, directly from the Catholic Church.
Additionally, the Government of Canada signed a memorandum of agreement with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation regarding historical documents related to residential schools: https://www.canada.ca/en/crown-indigenous-relations-northern-affairs/news/2022/01/canada-shares-residential-school-documents-with-national-centre-for-truth-and-reconciliation.html.
In response to part (d), ministers and department officials encouraged the CCCB and church entities to share all their documents relating to residential schools. Further, the department requested waivers of implied undertaking for specific document collections obtained through litigation.
The purpose of the December 13, 2021, call was to discuss the possibility of the department obtaining a waiver of implied undertaking to allow it to share documents obtained from the Sisters of St. Ann with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

Question No. 225—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to rising food prices: (a) has the government completed an analysis of the impact of increased food prices on recipients of the (i) Guaranteed Income Supplement, (ii) Canada Child Benefit, (iii) Canada Worker Benefit; (b) of the documents referred to in (a), what are their titles and dates; and (c) has the government developed projections of the impact of rising food prices on those living below the (i) low income cut-off, (ii) Market Basket Measure, (iii) Low Income Measure, and, if so, what are the results of those projections?
Response
Ms. Ya’ara Saks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Employment and Social Development Canada, ESDC, has not conducted specific analyses on the impact of changing prices of basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing or transportation on recipients of specific benefit programs like the old age security and guaranteed income supplement, OAS and GIS, the Canada child benefit, CCB, and the Canada workers benefit, CWB. Moreover, ESDC has not developed projections of the impact of changing prices on the population that lives below the low-income cut-offs, LICO, below the official poverty line based on the market basket measure, MBM, or on low income according to the low income measure, LIM.
To account for inflation, government benefits that target the most vulnerable, including OAS and GIS, the CCB, the CWB and the goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax, GST/HST, credit are indexed to inflation annually to keep up with increases to the cost of living.
In particular, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada pension plan each contain a guarantee ensuring that benefits can never be reduced, even in the event of a decline in the consumer price index, CPI. OAS benefits, including the GIS, are adjusted four times per year, in January, April, July and October, while Canada pension plan, CPP, benefits are adjusted annually in January. These benefits will continue to be adjusted in accordance with changes in the cost of living.

Question No. 232—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to funds allocated through Canadian Heritage programs since 2010, broken down by program and year: (a) how much money is allocated to organizations in each province; (b) how much money is allocated to organizations located in western Canada; and (c) what percentage of funds go to Albertan organizations?
Response
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, government information on funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees issued by departments and agencies is based on parliamentary authorities for departmental or agency programs and activities. This information is listed on the following websites: https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?_ga=2.177218029.930871220.1640011343-1034491344.1619371825 https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/index.html

Question No. 239—
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to federal investment in affordable housing: (a) what number of investments have been made in the riding of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke since the 2019 election; (b) what is the total amount of this investment; (c) has any funding been in invested in co-op housing programs; and (d) has any funding been allocated to assist in the revitalization of existing co-ops in order to meet the need for additional units and more units that reflect changing family structures in co-ops?
Response
Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) and (b), since October 2019, we have committed over $31 million supporting over 1,400 units in the riding of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.
In response to part (c), we have provided over $298,000 under federal community housing initiative, FCHI, phase one and approximatively $226,000 under FCHI phase two in the riding of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.
In response to part (d), the federal government, through the national housing co-investment fund, offers funding for the new construction and revitalization of community and affordable housing. Co-operatives are eligible to apply for funding under this national, application-based program. CMHC does not, however, track whether units were added to reflect changing family structures.

Question No. 240—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to the Sustainable Fisheries Solutions and Retrieval Support Contribution Program, since its inception: (a) how many applications for funding were received in each of the four themes of the program; (b) how many of the applications in (a) were denied; (c) what is the total weight of ghost gear retrieved through projects that have been funded; and (d) which areas have been identified as gear loss hotspots and habitat for species at risk?
Response
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the sustainable fisheries solutions and retrieval support contribution program, since its inception, in response to (a), regarding how many applications for funding were received in each of the four themes of the program, there were a total of 114 project proposal applications received. Many of the projects completed work in more than one pillar of activity. For example, many gear retrieval projects also worked closely with partners looking to recycle components of the gear. The following breakdown includes overlap in applicable pillars: ghost gear retrieval, 74; responsible disposal, 61; acquisition and piloting of available technology, 48; international leadership, 12.
In response to (b), regarding how many of the applications in (a) were denied, nine applications were rejected: failed initial triage. Nine applications were denied funding: did not meet program requirements. Forty-eight applications were pre-approved, not funded: these projects met program requirements, but did not rank as priority work based on program scoring and ranking. They are pre-approved for consideration if additional funding was to be made available.
In response to (c), regarding what the total weight is of ghost gear retrieved through projects that have been funded, the total weight of ghost gear removed through funded projects is 1,239 tonnes. Additionally, 118 kilometres of rope has been retrieved.
In response to (d), regarding which areas have been identified as gear loss hot spots and habitat for species at risk, areas prioritized to date through the ghost gear program include the Gulf of St. Lawrence and areas of the North Atlantic right whale congregation in Atlantic Canada. This area sees significant crab and lobster fishing, and targeted retrievals of lost gear will reduce the risk of entanglement to marine mammals, as well as the risk of ghost fishing species, including Atlantic cod, herring and mackerel. Another area is the Fraser River in British Columbia. This area sees significant fisheries using gillnets, which is considered a high-impact gear type if abandoned, discarded or lost. This area is habitat for various at-risk species, including salmon and white sturgeon.

Question No. 250—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to tree-planting initiatives led by the government since 2010, broken down by fiscal year: (a) what initiatives and programs have been created to increase tree-planting efforts; (b) what was the allocated budget for each initiative or program in (a); (c) how many jobs were created in each program or initiative that were (i) permanent full-time, (ii) permanent part-time, (iii) seasonal full-time, (iv) seasonal part-time, (v) offered through the Canada Summer Jobs program; (d) what was the total number of trees planted through the programs and initiatives in (a); and (e) what is the approximate greenhouse gas emission reduction achieved by each initiative or program in (a)?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the two billion trees program is a government-led program that was created with the specific goal of increasing tree-planting efforts.
The Minister of Natural Resources, with support from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, was mandated to develop and implement a plan to plant two billion trees over the next 10 years as part of a broader commitment to natural climate solutions. This program was officially launched in February 2021, with federal funds secured in the 2020 fall economic statement.
The two billion trees program was launched under the broader natural climate solutions fund, NCSF, a horizontal initiative, which also includes programs run by Environment and Climate Change Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Under the NCSF, the two billion trees program received $3.2 billion for funding over 10 years.
The two billion trees program is a proposal-based grants and contribution program. Interested and eligible organizations are required to submit project proposals. Expert evaluation panels assess projects to ensure they meet the primary program goal of carbon sequestration, with strong considerations for other co-benefits such as biodiversity and human well-being. Projects must also pass risk and due diligence requirements before they are retained for funding via contribution agreements. As a result, specific tree planting locations, any related employment and greenhouse gas,GHG, reduction benefits, will depend on the funding proposals put forward by provinces, territories, Indigenous communities, and organizations across Canada.
Following a call for expressions of interest in February 2021, the program received 120 applications for early tree planting in 2021. NRCan has finalized most of its funding agreements to support the planting of over 30 million trees across the country, in both urban and rural areas. Many of the projects began planting in spring 2021 and planting continued through the 2021 planting season. NRCan proactively discloses these grants and contributions on Open Canada: https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/.
Similar to other government grants and contribution programs, contribution agreements with federal funding recipients outline “planned” projects or activities. In the case of the two billion trees program, the exact number of trees planted are reported by the funding recipients on a quarterly basis and after all of their planting activities have been completed. Program recipients will have 60 days after the end of the fiscal year, March 31, 2022, to provide their final reporting. At that stage, NRCan will consolidate and validate the data and is expected to publicly disclose the results on the 2021 tree planting season in spring 2022.
Funding recipients are required to report on their program activities, including details on the number and types of jobs created and approximate GHG emissions reductions. However, the two billion trees program will be reporting on aggregate direct, indirect or induced jobs, based on analysis of information provided by program recipients. Canada’s two billion trees program will create up to 4,300 jobs across the country and will reduce GHG emissions by up to 12 Mt per year by 2050.
The data collected from funding recipients will serve as the basis of performance reporting for the program. Employment information will be officially reported on in the departmental results report beginning in 2025. With the information provided by funding recipients, NRCan will calculate overall GHG emissions reductions from activities supported by the two billion trees program. Reporting on GHG reductions will begin in 2023.
More information on the two billion trees program’s performance indicators, including tree planting, jobs, and GHG reductions, can be found at: https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/2-billion-trees/natural-climate-solutions-fund-performance-indicators.html.

Question No. 255—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations' statement on October 26, 2021, that "[...] it's time to give land back" to Indigenous people: (a) what land is the Minister of Crown-Indigenous relations referring to; (b) for each response in (a), which First Nation, Inuit, or Metis group does the minister believe the land should be given back to; (c) if applicable, when will the land in (a) be given back; and (d) what consultation processes have been or will be established to determine compensation for stolen land?
Response
Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is concerned, the response is as follows: In response to part (a), theGovernment of Canada recognizes that lands are central to Indigenous traditions, identity and prosperity.
Informed by the UN Declaration and Canadian jurisprudence, the Government of Canada is working with Indigenous and provincial and territorial partners at negotiation and discussion tables across the country to address outstanding land claims and other land-related issues. This includes a range of issues from where lands are owed under treaties or other agreements, where land is added to reserves, and where aboriginal title is asserted.
Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples started with land, and we remain committed to addressing long-standing and unresolved issues regarding land, to continue building trust with Indigenous peoples. Lands are a crucial asset for advancing self-determination, economic development and well-being. Additions to reserve play a significant role in returning land to Indigenous communities, fulfilling legal obligations, improving relationships with Indigenous communities, and fostering economic opportunities.
There are currently over nine million acres of reserve land in Canada, and an additional three to four million acres of land is owed to first nations through existing treaty land entitlement and specific claims agreements. This number is expected to rise given the more than 220 specific claims in active negotiation that could result in an addition to reserve provision as part of the settlement.
Budget 2021 committed $43 million over three years, starting in 2021-22, to work with Indigenous partners and other stakeholders to redesign the federal additions to reserve policy and to accelerate work on existing proposals from first nations across the country.
In response to part (b), in addition to the more than 220 specific claims in active negotiation with first nations across the country, the government currently has approximately 170 modern treaty and recognition of Indigenous eights and aelf-setermination discussion tables with first nations, Inuit and Métis rights-bearing communities aimed at implementing rights and developing innovative responses to Indigenous interests, including those related to land.
Walking the path of reconciliation means working together and having these complex discussions as the government does the work of addressing long-standing issues about land and implementing Indigenous rights in the true spirit of respect, co-operation and partnership.
In response to part (c), the work of returning land to Indigenous peoples is already under way in a number of different contexts. Namely, existing modern treaties and ongoing negotiations are two primary means of returning Indigenous lands. Modern treaties have provided for Indigenous ownership over 600,000 square kilometres of land and capital transfers of over $3.2 billion. They also include protection of traditional ways of life, access to resource development opportunities, participation in land and resources management decisions, and associated self-government rights and political recognition.
Canada is also actively engaged in specific claims negotiations, modern treaty negotiations and recognition of Indigenous rights and self-determination discussion tables with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners across the country as a means of finding innovative solutions, including those related to addressing land rights and interests.
Negotiations proceed at different rates depending on the priorities of communities and the different components of the agreement being negotiated, of which land may be one of several priority areas for discussion.
For Crown land that the Government of Canada is responsible for, there is a structured process in place for the disposition of federal Crown land and this process includes consultation with Indigenous groups. This process is set out in the Treasury Board policy on the disposal of surplus real property: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12043.
In response to part (d), land claims involve complex issues. The government believes that the best way to address land-related disputes is through dialogue and negotiation with partners to find shared and balanced solutions.
Where land is being considered as part of a negotiated land claim settlement, consistent with Canadian jurisprudence and existing federal policy, consultations are undertaken by the federal and/or provincial government with affected third parties and Indigenous groups.

Question No. 261—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the Pandora Papers case and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) how many auditors are currently assigned to this case, broken down by auditor category; (b) how many audits were completed; (c) how many high risk cases of non-compliance were identified; (d) how many new files were opened; (e) how many files were closed; (f) of the files closed in (e), what was the average time taken to process the file before it was closed; (g) of the files closed in (e), what was the risk level of each file; (h) how much money was spent on suppliers and subcontractors; (i) of the suppliers and subcontractors in (h), what was the initial and final value of each contract; (j) of the suppliers and subcontractors in (h), what is the description of each service contract; (k) how many notices of reassessment were issued; (l) what is the total amount recovered to date; and (m) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA. In response to parts (a) through (l), on Sunday October 3, 2021, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, ICIJ, released findings in its investigation which it entitled “Pandora Papers”. On Monday, December 6, 2021, the ICIJ shared the first release of the Pandora Papers data that contained structured data for two of 14 offshore service providers.
The CRA has begun reviewing the ICIJ data that has been released thus far, and is integrating the information in its systems with its existing data. The CRA is currently working to identify all Canadian taxpayers, and will conduct further risk assessments as needed. Following the completion of the risk assessments, the CRA will identify files for audit.
The CRA has organized teams responsible for identifying how to integrate the information leaked through the Pandora Papers with data the CRA already possesses.
As with past leaks, the CRA will need time to validate the reliability of the data as well as the degree of tax non-compliance from a Canadian perspective. It’s important to keep in mind the initial information gathering and data analysis for the Panama Papers took the CRA over three years to complete as many of the initially purported links to Canada did not ultimately point to Canadian taxpayers.
While work has commenced, it would be premature to conduct audits into those with links to the Pandora Papers; therefore, the CRA, cannot answer in the manner requested.
Furthermore, the ICIJ states on its website, “ICIJ is not publishing raw documents or personal information en masse.” For this reason, the CRA is unable to predict the contents or the timeline of future information releases.
In response to part (m), as noted above, the CRA is still in the process of assembling data for future possible audits, and as such it is too early to speculate on referrals to the CRA’s criminal investigations program. Additionally, since the full list has not been made public, it is not possible at this point in time to confirm if a referral regarding an individual or entity on the list has been made.
In order to preserve the integrity of investigations, the CRA does not comment on investigations that it may or may not be undertaking.

Question No. 262—
Mr. Marc Dalton:
With regard to health concerns related to the rail industry: (a) what is Health Canada's role regarding human health concerns in relation to the rail industry; (b) what specific powers does Health Canada have to ensure that noise and vibration levels in Pitt Meadows, British Columbia, do not continue to exceed Health Canada guidelines; (c) what emissions monitoring is currently in place in Pitt Meadows; and (d) what was the range of emission levels recorded in Pitt Meadows in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021 to date?
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), Health Canada’s role in relation to human health concerns of proposed major resource and infrastructure projects, including the rail industry, is fulfilled through the impact assessment process. In accordance with the Impact Assessment Act, Health Canada provides technical expertise, for example, regarding air quality, noise, drinking water quality, social determinants of health, to support the assessment of impacts on human health from projects, on the request of the decision-making authorities or impact assessment reviewing body or bodies, for example, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, review panels, and/or provinces and territories.
The act does not provide the Minister of Health the authority to designate projects or make a health assessment a requirement for federally funded projects. Furthermore, Health Canada does not have a regulatory function or a role in the approval or funding of projects. The decision-making authorities or impact assessment reviewing body or bodies determine how the expertise provided by Health Canada will be used in the impact assessment process.
(a) In response to (b), on November 4, 2021, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change determined that the Pitt Meadows Road and tail improvement and the logisticspark Vancouver projects do not warrant designation under the Impact Assessment Act. The details of these decisions can be found at: (1) https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/141737?culture=en-CA; (2) https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/141661?culture=en-CA.
In the absence of a designation under the Impact Assessment Act, Health Canada remains available to consider specific concerns within the department’s areas of expertise, as described above, if requested by the responsible jurisdiction, for example, a province or territory.
Setting standards or guidelines for environmental noise or vibration levels, and regulating noise and vibration levels fall outside of Health Canada’s purview. Noise may be managed by different levels of government. It may be regulated directly through federal, provincial and territorial legislation and guidelines, or through municipal bylaws, which may apply broadly or only to specific situations or sectors.
Health Canada’s 2017 publication “Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise” “provides general information on acceptable noise levels for resource and infrastructure projects including all project phases. This guidance describes Health Canada's preferred approach for assessing noise-related health effects.
In response to (c), Health Canada does not have information regarding air pollutant emissions monitoring for Pitt Meadows since Health Canada does not conduct air pollutant emissions monitoring. Air pollutant emissions monitoring is under the purview of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
In response to (d), Health Canada does not have information regarding the range of emission levels recorded since Health Canada does not conduct air pollutant emissions monitoring. Air pollutant emissions monitoring is under the purview of Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Question No. 263—
Mr. Marc Dalton:
With regard to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's response to the request for designation of the Road and Rail Project in Pitt Meadows (IAAC reference # 82818) where he indicates that adverse effects will be managed through existing legislative mechanisms: which specific mechanisms is he referring to relating to diesel emissions exposure for residents?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada provided advice to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change with respect to the potential for existing legislative mechanisms to address adverse effects from the Pitt Meadows Road and rail project. The agency understands that diesel emissions resulting from the project would be managed through the following provincial and federal legislation: he Province of British Columbia’s Environmental Management Act, 2021, Part 6, Clean Air Provisions; the federal locomotive emissions regulations, 2017, under the Railway Safety Act; and the federal sulphur in diesel fuel regulations, 2002, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
Aboultaif, ZiadAccess to information requestsAdditions to Reserve processAdvisory bodiesAirportsAlbertaAlghabra, OmarAnandasangaree, GaryAngus, CharlieAnti-SemitismAshton, Niki ...Show all topics
Results: 1 - 3 of 3

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data