Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 853
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
View Matthew Green Profile
2020-12-11 11:27 [p.3334]
Expand
Madam Speaker, at the start of this pandemic, the Prime Minister called on Canadian industry to step up and produce protective equipment, and step up they did.
Distilleries and breweries across Canada scrambled to start producing much-needed hand sanitizer. Their hard work and initiative saved lives. However, instead of buying hand sanitizer from these Canadian businesses, which produced thousands of litres of it, the Liberal government sent over half a billion dollars to multinational corporations.
Can the minister explain the rationale behind the decision to buy hand sanitizer from outside of Canada, when small businesses in this country worked so hard to start producing it?
Collapse
View William Amos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View William Amos Profile
2020-12-11 11:27 [p.3335]
Expand
Madam Speaker, our government is so proud of the exceptional efforts by Canadian companies all across this great country to produce all of the materials that we needed to address the COVID crisis.
In every single province, small businesses, large businesses and transformed businesses got us where we needed to go. That is exactly what we invested in all along. Yes, there was equipment that could not be purchased here, and purchases were made outside of the country. Everything was done absolutely properly, and we have made sure that our manufacturing sector has been transformed as a result.
Collapse
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
2020-12-11 11:51 [p.3340]
Expand
Madam Speaker, let me provide a clear example of how little Quebec means to the Liberal Party of Canada.
Ottawa withdrew a contract to build an icebreaker from Seaspan in Vancouver because it was unable to build it. It simply did not have the necessary production capacity. I have nothing against British Columbia, but it was not prepared.
The Davie shipyard in Quebec offered to take over the contract and build the icebreaker immediately. The Liberals are not only not transferring the contract to Davie, but they are spending an extra $1 billion to improve the production capacity of the other shipyard. That is just great. They are prepared to pay $1 billion more to keep the contract out of Quebec.
How do the Liberals—
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-12-11 11:51 [p.3340]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the Davie shipyard is an essential partner of the Government of Canada.
There is a contract to refit a frigate and a second interim icebreaker has been upgraded thanks to the workers at Davie shipyard. Beyond that, we are also considering its inclusion as the third shipyard in the national shipbuilding strategy, something the Conservatives ignored and did not do when they were in power.
We will continue to work with the Davie shipyard.
Collapse
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
2020-12-11 11:52 [p.3340]
Expand
Madam Speaker, that is obviously not enough.
The federal government needs to get an icebreaker built. It can choose between, on the one hand, a Vancouver shipyard that had the contract taken away because it could not fulfill it and, on the other, Davie shipyard in Lévis, Quebec, which is ready to get to work right away.
The Liberals have decided to give another $1 billion to the Vancouver shipyard so it can finish the contract late and over budget, and do the job that Davie can do right now.
It is a bad political decision, a waste of public money and an insult to Quebec.
Why are the Quebec Liberals not speaking out on this?
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-12-11 11:53 [p.3340]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the Quebec Liberals work on behalf of Quebec workers. That is why we are working on including Davie shipyard in the national shipbuilding strategy, which opens the door to new contracts on top of those Davie already has, like the $22.1 billion in contracts it has already been awarded.
We will continue to work with this shipyard and we will not listen to the Bloc's twisted facts and fabrications. We have not awarded more contracts to Vancouver and we will work with Davie.
Collapse
View Michael Barrett Profile
CPC (ON)
moved:
That the report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, entitled “Maloney Report”, tabled on Thursday, November 19, 2020, be concurred in.
He said: Madam Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner sought to determine if the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore had contravened subsection 20(1) of the Code. All members have now received a copy of the “Maloney Report” and I want to share some of those details with the House.
The report says, “Under subsection 20(1), Members must fully disclose their private interests and those of their family members to the Commissioner as the first step in their initial compliance process after they are elected.” We all know this as members. The Code requires us to do this within 60 days of notice of our election having been published in the Canada Gazette.
All members received a letter from the commissioner, just as the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore did. This member, of course, was reminded of his obligations, including his obligation to file a disclosure statement and provide all required supporting documents by January 7, 2020. No disclosure was received by that deadline.
After multiple reminders to the member to properly complete his disclosure, which went ignored into late February, the commissioner had to go to the government whip to try to have the member's obligations fulfilled. I will note that on March 18, when the commissioner again tried to have the member fulfill his obligations, the commissioner's office was met for a second time with a very harsh response for having the audacity to contact the member and ask him to complete his obligations under the Code, which are important ethical obligations of all members.
For the rest of March, all of April and May and into June, there was no reply to many inquiries by the commissioner. At the end of June, the commissioner informed the member to make himself available for an interview, but he ignored the request. However, when media started asking questions, the member reached out to the commissioner on August 5. At long last, the disclosure that was originally due on January 7 was finally completed on September 14. After months of ignoring repeated communications from the commissioner, the member finally complied.
What was his excuse? He said he was busy dealing with the pandemic, as if all members had not been dealing with the exact same thing, yet they found time to comply with their obligations. I will note that, of course, this disclosure was due before we knew that the pandemic had started. If the member knew in November, December and January that we were due for the pandemic and that was why he was unable to fulfill his obligations, he could have at least informed his colleagues in the governing party. Of course, it is an excuse. It is not the reason the member was unable to fulfill their obligations.
It is no surprise that, with all of these details and facts, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore was found guilty of breaching subsection 20(1)(i) of the Code. The “Maloney Report” clearly demonstrates the lack of respect the Liberals have for the Ethics Commissioner and the ethical rules and laws of this place. If a fish rots from the head down, this is the tail.
The problem has gone unaddressed with these Liberals for five years. The Prime Minister himself, now under investigation for a third time, has been already found guilty of breaking ethics laws twice. We know those details from the “Trudeau Report”, with the Prime Minister's trip to billionaire island, and the “Trudeau II Report”, which details the Prime Minister's interference in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin.
The Liberals need to have respect for Canadians. Frankly, they need to get their act together. This year, the subject of what will be the third report is incredibly concerning for many Canadians. With the culture that we see around the cabinet table with multiple breaches by the former finance minister Mr. Morneau, by other ministers and friends of the Prime Minister, and findings of guilt by the Ethics Commissioner, it is no wonder that members who sit behind the government front bench feel they do not need to follow the rules. The top-down example is a complete disregard for the ethical rules of this place. It sows a distrust of our democratic institutions into the national conversation and the public discourse, and Canadians are rightly concerned.
This summer, we saw with the WE scandal that half a million dollars had been paid to members of the Prime Minister's family after we had first been told by the Prime Minister's Office that, of course, no money had been paid. That turned out to be untrue. We know that half a million was paid. Later we learned, with pictures of the Prime Minister's family in the documents presented to cabinet, a half-billion-dollar contribution agreement had been approved for these same folks who had given the Prime Minister's family huge sums of money.
When that investigation started to damage the government, the Prime Minister broke another promise. While he had promised a transparent and open government, and we certainly have not seen that, he also promised not to prorogue Parliament to avoid scrutiny. Of course, that is exactly what he did on the eve before documents were to be released to the ethics committee. Immediately following the prorogation of Parliament, he illegally dumped redacted documents on the finance committee.
The fact that the government did this is a demonstration of its understanding that what it was doing was wrong. The committee had ordered the documents unredacted and to be reviewed by the parliamentary law clerk. This is the contempt shown by this government for the rules of this place, for a lawful order of committee. They are just like the rules that we are all bound to follow under the code for members, as is detailed in the “Maloney Report", where we see the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore disregard those rules for nearly a year, and we have now seen it under the act where the Prime Minister has been found guilty of breaking those laws.
Once Parliament resumed, of course, we had filibuster after filibuster from the Liberals. This, of course, was after the Prime Minister promised to allow for all questions to be asked once Parliament resumed, but that is not what happened. For dozens of hours at the ethics committee and dozens of hours at the finance committee, Liberals obstructed the work of parliamentarians to get to the truth, during a pandemic no less. While we should be focusing on what Canadians need, and how to protect Canadians' lives and livelihoods, we are left having to also follow up on the inability of Liberal members to follow the rules of this place.
The Liberals have said before that we should ignore these transgressions and that we should wait until the pandemic is over, but, frankly, that would be irresponsible. The Liberal members suggest that the official opposition is not able to walk and chew gum at the same time, we are able to hold the government to account on multiple fronts, but it is unfortunate that we find that this rot of corruption and inability to follow the rules has spread from the front benches of the Liberal ranks into the backbenches. It is important to note that we find ourselves in a unique position with the Prime Minister found guilty not once or twice, but under investigation a third time for breaking ethical rules.
We will hear from Liberals today that it was, of course, the previous prime minister who brought these rules into force. Well, it is also interesting to note that the previous prime minister was never found to have contravened the act, and that is because there was no contravention. These rules were put in place to ensure that Canadians can have confidence in their democratic institutions. That is essential to the function of this democracy. It is shameful that the temporary office holders, and we are all placeholders in our constituencies, just like the occupants in the Prime Minister's Office are temporary, doing this disservice to the legacy, to the institution of this place, with their disregard for the rules.
Frankly, if the Liberals have such contempt for the rules, why do they not put forward a bill in House to repeal them? Then we would see if they have the courage of their convictions, and it could be laid bare for all Canadians to see the true contempt for the rules of this place that these Liberals have. I hope that in 2021 the Liberals have a New Year's resolution to finally show respect for Canadians and follow the rules of this place.
Collapse
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2020-12-10 14:45 [p.3292]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, Dave owns Wayward Distillery in my riding. He and his employees produced hand sanitizer for local police, health care workers and community organizations. He gave away tens of thousands of dollars' worth of sanitizer for free and sold some at cost. Even though his profit went down, his revenues show as being up, and the government says that he does not qualify for any emergency support programs.
Why did the Liberals abandon Canadian heroes and give big orders to multinational corporations instead of purchasing from small Canadian businesses like Dave's?
Collapse
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
2020-12-10 14:46 [p.3292]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to be in touch with the office of the hon. member and learn more about the particular situation of that business.
We have a wide range of programs in place to support Canadian businesses. The wage subsidy, rent support, additional lockdown support, CEBA, including the new CEBA top-up that became available last Friday, and the regional development agencies are there to fill in the gaps for businesses that, for unique reasons, just do not quite qualify.
I would be happy to work with the hon. member regarding this business.
Collapse
View Jacques Gourde Profile
CPC (QC)
View Jacques Gourde Profile
2020-12-10 14:50 [p.3293]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, in response to the Prime Minister's call this spring, Canadian distilleries invested heavily in manufacturing disinfectant to fight the pandemic.
We have learned that, while this was going on, the Liberal government awarded contracts to foreign companies for disinfectant without any consideration for Canadian businesses. How does the Prime Minister explain that decision?
Collapse
View Anita Anand Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Anand Profile
2020-12-10 14:51 [p.3293]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that since the beginning of this pandemic, this government has supported businesses across this country that stepped up and went above and beyond to support the effort against COVID-19. Roughly 1,000 companies pivoted to produce PPE in the fight against COVID-19. Companies like Fluid Energy Group in Edmonton are making hand sanitizer for all of Canada. We are immensely proud of how Canadian industry has stepped up, and we continue to support Canadians through their efforts.
Collapse
View Jacques Gourde Profile
CPC (QC)
View Jacques Gourde Profile
2020-12-10 14:51 [p.3293]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, in total, this government spent $570 million in foreign countries, including $250 million for Chinese disinfectant.
Our Canadian distilleries did not get any contracts. Si-Mart, a business in my riding, invested $150,000 to help us combat COVID-19. Will the Liberal government buy Canadian when possible? This is another scandal.
Collapse
View Anita Anand Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Anand Profile
2020-12-10 14:52 [p.3293]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
The situation he described is inaccurate, however.
We have a contract with Fluid Energy Group for hand sanitizer in the amount of $106 million. Fluid Energy has provided that hand sanitizer. Right here in Canada, hand sanitizer is produced while we support businesses across this country for the benefit of Canadians always.
Collapse
View Julie Vignola Profile
BQ (QC)
View Julie Vignola Profile
2020-12-10 14:53 [p.3293]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, this government is working against Quebec in shipbuilding.
It is cutting the Davie shipyard out of a $2-billion contract and giving it to Seaspan in Vancouver. However, Seaspan previously had this contract for six years and did nothing in those six years. In fact, the contract was taken away from Seaspan last year, in 2019.
I am not making this up. The Liberals are prepared to give the contract back to a shipyard that failed to honour it. What are the Quebec Liberals doing? How can they stand for this?
Collapse
View Anita Anand Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Anand Profile
2020-12-10 14:53 [p.3293]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, before I respond, I just want to say this has been a wonderful week for Canadians. We are going to have vaccines in this country on Monday. Pfizer has been approved. Pfizer has committed to vaccine deliveries, and all Canadians can be so proud.
As for the question, we have not made a decision on the icebreaker yet, not at all. The process is ongoing, and we are looking at our options. Davie is a strong and reliable partner. We are working with Davie.
Collapse
View Julie Vignola Profile
BQ (QC)
View Julie Vignola Profile
2020-12-10 14:54 [p.3293]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, 3% is the share of contracts that Quebec has obtained under Liberal leadership. Quebec is the second-highest tax-paying province. It has the largest shipyard in Canada, yet we are not able to get more than 3% of the contracts. We are being robbed of a contract by a shipyard that already proved itself incapable of fulfilling it. There are 2,500 jobs at stake in Lévis and Quebec City.
I have been rising for weeks in support of Davie. Will my Liberal colleagues from Quebec rise with me, too?
Collapse
View Anita Anand Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Anand Profile
2020-12-10 14:54 [p.3294]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, this is not at all the case.
We have awarded more than 14% of contracts worth over $2 billion to Quebec businesses. We have not yet made a decision on the icebreaker. As I said before, the shipyard is a very important partner for our government, and we are working with it now.
Collapse
View Yves Robillard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Yves Robillard Profile
2020-12-09 15:10 [p.3212]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, our government has been doing exceptional procurement work throughout the pandemic so that Canadians have access to essential personal protective equipment.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it was very difficult to obtain N95 masks, face shields, gowns and other personal protective equipment that met approved standards. There were problems in the supply chain and an unprecedented level of demand, since the whole world was trying to acquire this sort of equipment.
Could the Prime Minister give us an update on the personal protective equipment we brought into Canada and sent to the provinces and territories?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-12-09 15:11 [p.3212]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his question and hard work.
At the beginning of the pandemic, we faced many challenges in procuring essential personal protective equipment. We responded to those challenges by negotiating contracts for the purchase of over 197 million N95 respirators, 60 million face shields and 419 million surgical masks. Deliveries continue to arrive every day.
We promised to protect the health of Canadians and that is exactly what we are doing.
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-12-09 15:39
Expand

Question No. 171--
Ms. Leona Alleslev:
With regard to contracts signed since January 1, 2016, which are not subject to proactive disclosure due to receiving a national security exception (NSE), broken down by year and by department or agency: (a) how many contracts have received an NSE; (b) for which commodities has an NSE been applied; (c) what is the total dollar value of all contracts that have received an NSE; (d) how many of the contracts have a total value (i) under $200,000, (ii) between $200,000 and $1,000,000, (iii) over $1,000,000; and (e) for each NSE signed since January 1, 2020, where an official signed a letter invoking the NSE, what is the (i) date, (ii) name of official, (iii) title of official, (iv) commodity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 172--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to undertakings to allow government employees to work from home as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on providing technology resources, including monitors and computer mouses, to employees who are working from home, itemized by date and broken down by department, agency, or Crown corporation; (b) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on providing office furniture, including chairs and desks, to employees who are working from home, itemized by date and broken down by department, agency or Crown corporation; (c) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on administrative expenses, such as internet or telecommunications bills, for employees who are working from home, itemized by date and broken down by department, agency or Crown corporation; (d) what is the total number of office chairs provided to federal employees from government warehouses for the purpose of working from home, itemized by date and broken down by department, agency or Crown corporation; and (e) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on the transport, including delivery, of items mentioned in (a) through (d) to employees who are working from home?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 173--
Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to the chart entitled "Canada's COVID-19 Economic Response Plan - Overview" on the government's website, under the "Related resources" tab of the COVID-19 Economic Response Plan webpage: (a) what is the actual amount of actual expenditures made to date, broken down by each initiative listed on the chart; and (b) what is the number of individuals or organizations who have received funding, broken down by each initiative listed on the chart?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 174--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to car and driver services provided to employees of departments, agencies, or Crown corporations, as of October 22, 2020, and excluding ministers and other elected officials: (a) how many employees are entitled to a car and driver; and (b) what are the titles of all employees who are entitled to a car and driver?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 175--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to all government advertising on Facebook, broken down by fiscal year and federal department, agency, Crown corporation, minister's office or other entity from 2009-10 to present: (a) how much was allocated in each departmental budget annually for overall advertising; (b) how much of those allocated funds were spent on Facebook advertising; and (c) how much was spent in total across government on Facebook advertising for each fiscal year from 2009-10?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 176--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to Canada’s official residences including The Farm, Harrington Lake, Rideau Hall, Stornoway, 7 Rideau Gate and 24 Sussex Drive: what are all telecommunications costs incurred annually since 2010, including, for each fiscal year, (i) the total annual cost per residence, (ii) the type of services provided (e.g. fiberoptic, wireless, other or multiple), (iii) who is the telecom service provider (TSP) and are these under contract, (iv) if the TSP holds a contract, for how long, (v) inventory of type of services, products, channels or stations, packages provided, (vi) amount of downloaded content, (vii) speed of downloaded content?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 177--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the CRTC Broadband Fund, the Universal Broadband Fund and Connect to Innovate: (a) for each program and for each fiscal year it has been in operation, how much money was (i) allocated for the year, (ii) disbursed by the province and territory; (b) for each program and for each fiscal year it has been in operation, how many days elapsed between the application date and approval for each successful application; (c) for each program and for each fiscal year it has been in operation, how many days have elapsed since the submission of completed applications still under consideration; and (d) for each program, (i) how many applications have been submitted since applications opened, (ii) how many have been approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 178--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to government departments and agencies refusing to deem processing requests made under Access to Information and Privacy Act (ATIP) an essential service during the pandemic: (a) which department and agencies have deemed processing ATIP requests and producing responses an essential service and continue to process requests; (b) which departments and agencies refused to deem processing ATIP requests and producing responses an essential service; (c) for each department and agency in (b), did the minister responsible approve this refusal or decision and, if so, on what date did the minister approve the refusal or decision; and (d) of the departments in (b), which ones have resumed processing requests and producing responses and on what date did this the resumption occur?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 179--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to Indigenous communities and the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) how much money has been spent through the Indigenous Community Support Fund, broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) recipient community, (iii) date of application, (iv) date of disbursement; (b) for each day between February 1 and May 31, 2020, what telephone calls did the Minister of Indigenous Services, the deputy minister and any associate or assistant deputy ministers make to or hold with Indigenous communities, representative organizations (including National Indigenous Organizations (NIOs), tribal councils, and major political organizations, such as the Nishnawbe Aski Nation) regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, broken down by (i) departmental official, (ii) day, (iii) topic, (iv) organization or community; (c) how many ventilators were available in Indigenous communities in March 2020, and how many are available now; (d) how many ventilators is the Department of Indigenous Services ready to transfer to Indigenous communities on an urgent basis, if needed; (e) how many isolation tents did the Department of Indigenous Services have available in March 2020, and how many does it have available now; (f) what is the daily patient capacity of air ambulance services funded by the Department of Indigenous Services; (g) how much personal protective equipment expressed in shipments and in units has been sent in total to Indigenous communities, broken down further by province and date sent; and (h) how much funding has been disbursed to Indigenous organizations and communities providing services to Indigenous peoples in urban centres or off reserve, broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) recipient community or organization, (iii) date of application, (iv) date of disbursement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 180--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the Supplementary Estimates (A), 2020–21, with $48,710,504 in funding for communications and marketing (COVID-19) under Vote 1a, and $7,699,338 in funding to support regional presence, stabilize and enhance Privy Council Office capacity and the transfer of exempt staff in Ministers’ Regional Offices under Vote 1a, requested for the Privy Council Office, broken down for each source of funding: how was the whole amount of this funding used, broken down by line item and expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 181--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the Liechtenstein leaks and the Bahamas Leaks: (a) how many Canadian taxpayers were identified in the documents obtained, broken down by information leak and type of taxpayer, that is (i) an individual, (ii) a corporation, (iii) a partnership or trust; (b) how many audits did the CRA launch following the identification of taxpayers in (a), broken down by information leak; (c) of the audits in (b), how many were referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program, broken down by information leak; (d) how many of the investigations in (c) were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, broken down by information leak; (e) how many of the investigations in (d) resulted in a conviction, broken down by information leak; and (f) what was the sentence imposed for each conviction in (e), broken down by information leak?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 182--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the Offshore Tax Informant Program, since fiscal year 2015-16: (a) how many calls have been received; (b) how many files have been opened based on information received from informants; (c) what is the total amount of the awards paid to informants; (d) what is the total amount recovered by the Canada Revenue Agency; (e) how many current investigations are the result of information received through the program; and (f) how much money is involved in the current investigations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 183--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to negotiations between Canada and the United Kingdom toward a trade agreement: (a) how does the government define the terms (i) transitional trade agreement, (ii) comprehensive trade agreement; (b) when did negotiations between Canada and the United Kingdom begin for each type of agreement; (c) how many times and on what dates have officials from Canada and the United Kingdom met to discuss terms for each type of agreement; and (d) for each of these meetings, which Canadian officials were present?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 185--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to expenditures made by the government since December 1, 2019, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not elsewhere classified), or a similar code if the department uses another system: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided, including volume, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

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

Question No. 187--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the government's response to the Federal Communications Commission of the United States setting up the 988 telephone number as a National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and for mental health emergencies: what is the current timeline regarding when the 988 telephone number will be set up in Canada for a similar purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 188--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Safe Return to Class Fund: (a) how much money has been spent through the fund, broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) date of application, (iii) date of disbursement; (b) what are the details of all applications received for the fund, including the (i) amount requested, (ii) project description, (iii) province or territory of applicant; and (c) how many applications were rejected, broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) amount requested, (iii) project description, (iv) reason for refusal?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 189--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF) and audits by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) into tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, since March 11, 2020, and broken down by the LEEFF and CEWS: (a) how many audits has the CRA conducted to ensure companies are not committing tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, broken down by number of companies; (b) of the companies audited by the CRA in (a), how many have benefited from support measures and how many have been refused support because of tax fraud or aggressive tax avoidance; (c) how many pre-payment reviews have been conducted; (d) of the applications reviewed in (c), how many were refused in relation to the total pre-payment verifications conducted; (e) how many post-payment reviews have been conducted; and (f) of the reviews conducted in (e), how many companies had to refund the money received in relation to the total post-payment reviews conducted, and what is the total amount of money refunded?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 190--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF) and Canadian businesses listed in the “Panama Papers” and the “Paradise Papers,” broken down by the CEWS and the LEEFF: (a) how many businesses benefited from the CEWS and the LEEFF; (b) for each of the businesses listed in (a), what was the total amount received; and (c) for each of the businesses listed in (a), was any screening carried out before or after the payment was made?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 191--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the national risk assessment model (NRAM) used by the International and Large Business Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), from fiscal year 2011-12 to date: (a) how many taxpayers, considered to be at high risk of non-compliance, are subject to in-depth examination, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) category of taxpayer; (b) what is the list of indicators that help auditors detect potential aggressive tax planning files; (c) what steps are being taken to assess the effectiveness of the NRAM in detecting aggressive tax planning; and (d) what deficiencies have been identified by the CRA in its most recent ongoing evaluation of the NRAM?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 192--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to aggressive tax planning schemes identified by the Canada Revenue Agency, from fiscal year 2011-12 to the present: (a) what are the aggressive tax planning schemes identified by the agency; and (b) what is the estimated total foregone tax revenue, broken down by aggressive tax planning scheme?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 193--
Mr. Andrew Scheer:
With regard to the government’s announcement on October 1, 2020, regarding the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s three-year plan: (a) what specific modelling, if any, did the government use to substantiate its claim that the plan will create 60,000 jobs; (b) who conducted the modelling in (a); (c) what were the projections from the modelling; (d) what are the details of all documents sent to or received by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, her office or her deputy minister concerning the October 1 announcement, including the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) title, (v) format (email, memorandum, etc.), (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number; and (e) what are the details of all documents sent to or received by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, her office or her deputy minister concerning or that refer to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, since January 1, 2020, including the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) title, (v) format (email, memorandum, etc.), (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 194--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency, between fiscal years 2009-10 and 2018-19, broken down by fiscal year: a) how much was spent on training; and b) how much was spent on criminal investigations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 195--
Mr. Andrew Scheer:
With regard to government-funded infrastructure projects: (a) what is the complete list of projects the government funded that have been completed since January 1, 2020; (b) what are the details of all projects in (a), including the (i) expected date of completion, (ii) location, (iii) federal riding, (iv) project title or summary, (v) total federal contribution, (vi) date when the project began; (c) what is the complete list of all projects scheduled to be completed in the 2021 calendar year; and (d) what are the details of all projects in (c), including (i) expected date of completion, (ii) location, (iii) federal riding, (iv) project title or summary, (v) total federal contribution, (vi) date when the project began?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 196--
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the Department of Crown-Indigenous and Northern Affairs’ nutrition programs, including but not limited to Nutrition North, for the fiscal years of 2010-11 to 2020-21, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how much money was committed to these programs and, if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost; (b) how much of the committed money was left unspent and, if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost; (c) what products were bought, broken down by (i) subsidy level, (ii) food type each fiscal year; (d) for each program, who was consulted, if anyone, to set subsidy levels or otherwise contribute to the programs development; and (e) for each program, what nutrition data and targets were being used to determine program funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 197--
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to all federal funding committed to the creation and maintenance of housing stock in Nunavut, for each fiscal year from 2011-12 to 2020-21: (a) what was the total amount committed; (b) what was the total amount spent or best approximation; (c) how much new housing stock was created in Nunavut; and (d) what advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives, individuals or other organizations consulted with the relevant ministers regarding housing investments in Nunavut?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 198--
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the direct delivery of mental health services and benefits for communities within Nunavut, including community-based mental health services for Inuit communities, non-insured drugs and short-term mental health crisis counselling for recognized Inuit people through the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program, addiction prevention, treatment and aftercare programs, mental health, emotional and cultural support services and transportation services to eligible former Indian residential school students, basic social services for Inuit communities, including income supports, home care services, and family violence prevention programs and services and the National Inuit Suicide Prevention Strategy, for the fiscal years from 2010-11 to 2020-21: (a) how much money was committed to these programs for each fiscal year, broken down by program; (b) what was the total spent and, if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost for each fiscal year, broken down by program; (c) for each fiscal year of the programs, who was consulted, if anyone was consulted, to set subsidy levels or otherwise contribute to the programs development; and (d) for each year of the programs, what data and targets were being used to determine program funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 199--
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to RCMP operations in Nunavut, broken down by fiscal year from 2010-11 to 2020-21: (a) how much was spent on RCMP operations in the territory; (b) how much was spent on Inuit cultural training for RCMP officers who operated in the territory; (c) how many hours of cultural training were conducted; (d) how many officers were operating in Nunavut; (e) how much was spent on overtime for RCMP officers who were deployed to Nunavut; (f) how many complaints did the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC) receive in Nunavut; (g) how many complaints were dismissed without being investigated; and (h) for requests for review in which the CRCC is not satisfied with the RCMP’s report, how many interim reports have been provided to complainants for response and input on recommended actions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 200--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the government’s capital expenditures on drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on reserve, and Indigenous Services Canada and its predecessors' expenditures on maintenance and operations for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on reserve: (a) what amount has been allocated, broken down by program and by year (and, where applicable, by region), over the last five years; (b) what amount has been spent, broken down by program and by year (and, where applicable, by region), over the last five years; (c) over the past five years, how many boil water advisories have been active month to month; (d) over the past five years, which reserves have had water and wastewater infrastructure upgraded or built and what were they; (e) what are the companies that have received contracts to do the water and wastewater work on reserves; (f) where there any issues or problems in terms of fulfilling the contract and, if so, what were they; (g) out of the reserves that have had water and wastewater infrastructure built or repaired in the past five years, how many of them have had water issues, either with infrastructure or other issues, that resulted in renewed boil water advisories; (h) if so, which reserves, when did it occur and how long have they lasted; and (i) how long, according to the budgetary expectations, will it take to complete the government's promise to eliminate boil water advisories on First Nations reserves, based on the current level of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 201--
Mr. Jack Harris:
With regard to the demographics of the staff of the Correctional Service of Canada: what percentage of correctional officers self-identify as (i) Indigenous, (ii) Black, (iii) another visible minority, broken down by region (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, and Pacific)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 203--
Mr. Jack Harris:
With regard to the demographics of the RCMP: (a) what percentage of RCMP members self-identify as (i) Indigenous, (ii) Black, (iii) from another visible minority; (b) what percentage of RCMP staff self-identify as (i) Indigenous, (ii) Black, (iii) from another visible minority; (c) what percentage of RCMP members identify as (i) female, (ii) male, (iii) other; and (d) what percentage of RCMP staff identify as (i) female, (ii) male, (iii) other?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 204--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to surveillance technologies and their procurement, study, and use by federal government institutions: (a) what direct contacts (i.e. phone calls, emails, or in-person meetings) have taken place between ministers and public servants at the deputy minister, assistant deputy minister, chief of staff or senior policy advisor level or equivalent, and Palantir, Clearview AI and any of their respective subsidiaries, and for each such instance, what was the date, the method of contact, the subject matter discussed and the job title of any public servants present for it; (b) has the government concluded any contracts, contribution agreements or other formal or informal agreements with Palantir, Clearview AI and any of their respective subsidiaries, and, if so (i) with which institution, (ii) for what purpose, product or intended outcome, (iii) beginning when, (iv) what is the value of the contract, contribution agreement or other agreement; (c) do any government institutions (including departments and branches of agencies and Crown corporations) use data analytic services or software in modeling or predicting human behaviour, such as predictive policing, and, if so, (i) with which institution, (ii) for what purpose, product or intended outcome, (iii) beginning when, (iv) what is the value of the contract, contribution agreement or other agreement; (d) what government institutions (including departments and branches of agencies and Crown corporations) are currently or are planning to start using facial recognition technology and (i) how long have they been using it, (ii) what are they using it for, (iii) how often do they use it, (iv) what suppliers (companies) are they using, (v) what is the value of any related contracts or agreements; and (e) have there been any privacy breaches related to this technology or uses that have been deemed improper?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 205--
Mr. Jack Harris:
With regard to the use of force by RCMP members in the course of their duty: (a) how many interactions between members of the RCMP and members of the public occurred in each of the years from 2000 to 2020, inclusively, that resulted in the (i) death, (ii) bodily injury, of a person, whether such death occurred immediately or subsequent to the incident or while in police custody; and (b) for each incident, what was the date, (i) whether the incident resulted in the injury, however minor, or death of the detained person, (ii) the province where the incident took place, (iii) the RCMP division involved, (iv) the community within the province where the incident occurred, or if the community is not possible, the RCMP detachment responsible for the geographic region where the incident occurred, (v) whether the incident took place in public, in a private home or other building, an RCMP vehicle, in an RCMP detachment building, or in an RCMP cell, (vi) whether the RCMP was acting in a contract policing role, (vii) the race, gender, sex, age of the person injured or deceased, (viii) whether medical attention was sought, (ix) if an investigation was launched, (x) if an investigation was launched, the name of the investigating agency, (xi) the outcome of any of the investigations, including the date thereof, and whether any charges were recommended or laid?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
8555-432-171 National security exceptions8555-432-172 Work from home equipment8555-432-173 COVID-19 Economic Response Plan8555-432-174 Car and driver services8555-432-175 Government advertising8555-432-176 Official residences8555-432-177 Broadband Internet8555-432-178 Access to information requests8555-432-179 Indigenous communities and ...8555-432-181 Liechtenstein and Bahamas i ...8555-432-182 Offshore Tax Informant Program ...Show all topics
View Steven Blaney Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to strut around the Davie shipyard in Lévis and make fine promises. Once the photos have been taken, they slip away without doing anything for the shipyard's workers and suppliers.
However, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy have urgent needs, and only Davie is able to build these ships here, in Canada, on schedule and on budget.
The Liberals claim that the Davie shipyard is now part of the national shipbuilding strategy, but they are ignoring and flouting this strategy by having ferries built abroad.
It is time for the Liberals to finally put words into action by offering a firm contract to Davie before Christmas and stop ignoring the largest shipyard in Canada and one we are very proud of.
Collapse
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2020-12-08 14:18 [p.3148]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tried to criticize us for asking questions on the CanSino deal. It turns out we were not the only ones with questions. The Globe and Mail is reporting that the government's own vaccine task force recommended against working with CanSino. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that scientists were guiding the government's decision with respect to the vaccine.
Why did the government make an exception for the Chinese pharmaceutical giant CanSino?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-12-08 14:18 [p.3148]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, we stepped up for Canadians. We reached out to procure potential vaccines from every possible source. We were not going to close any door that would maybe help Canadians. We ended up, therefore, with seven contracts signed with a diverse group of the top vaccine manufacturers in the world. We will continue to ensure we are doing everything we can, based on the best advice of experts, to get these vaccines to Canadians, so we can get through this pandemic once and for all.
Collapse
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2020-12-08 14:19 [p.3148]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, we found out the first door the Prime Minister opened was with China. We also found out last week the government had been briefed on the security risks involving the Chinese company CanSino. The Prime Minister said that news report was making things up. Now we learn that the scientists agreed with the security experts on CanSino.
If the security experts were against partnering with China, and the scientists were against partnering with China, why did the government partner with China?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-12-08 14:20 [p.3148]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, we signed seven contracts with different vaccine producers from around the world in order to deliver vaccines reliably to Canadians. We looked for all partnerships, including one that was a successful partnership in developing an ebola vaccine a number of years ago with CanSino. That did not pan out for a number of different reasons, but what we are left with is seven extraordinary contracts that have secured more doses per capita for Canadians, potentially, than any other country in the world.
Collapse
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2020-12-08 14:20 [p.3148]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, we lost five months on the China deal that the Prime Minister said did not pan out. We did not prioritize domestic vaccine production. The government did not listen. Instead of pursuing a made-in-Canada solution, which was actually put forward by their own experts, the Liberals signed off on a partnership with CanSino. For that partnership they put millions into a facility, which they were told was not ready for vaccine production.
Why did the Prime Minister favour a made-in-China solution instead of the made-in-Canada solution their own experts were demanding?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-12-08 14:21 [p.3148]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we leaned on our experts, on the immunity task force and on the vaccination task force, to make recommendations on what we should do to ensure a solid supply of potential vaccines to Canadians. That advice actually led us to being in the enviable position of having more doses from more companies than just about any other country, and we are hopeful to be receiving our first vaccinations next week. This is what a government that listens to experts and works hard for Canadians has been able to deliver.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we all read or heard fairy tales when we were young. The latest one is called “Frank Baylis and His Liberal Friends”.
It is a simple but damning story. The problem is that none of the main characters can agree. They do not all consider each other friends, even thought the facts suggest otherwise.
My question is simple: Did the minister grant other contracts to shell companies like FTI Professional Grade, a company created just days before the government signed the $237-million contract that was given to its friend, Frank Baylis?
Collapse
View Anita Anand Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Anand Profile
2020-12-08 14:48 [p.3153]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
To date, we have received over 3,000 ventilators for Canadians. That is a big part of our nationwide efforts to help all Canadians and people in hospitals.
We are here for Canadians. Our government has stocked up on PPE and all sorts of medical equipment. Businesses from across this country have stepped up and we are so grateful to those businesses and to Canadians at large.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Baylis's ventilators had not even been approved by Health Canada at the time the contract was granted. In addition, Mr. Baylis admitted to the committee that he needed money. He had to refinance his business and his buildings because he was having problems.
Did the government pay twice as much because Frank Baylis was having money troubles?
Was the contract written in such a way as to hide extra expenses?
Collapse
View Anita Anand Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Anand Profile
2020-12-08 14:49 [p.3154]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting tale, but it is not at all true.
Following a thorough review by a group of independent experts, we granted a contract to FTI Professional Grade Inc. It was for Canadians and for hospitals. We are here for Canada.
Collapse
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2020-12-08 15:04 [p.3156]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, when the pandemic hit and front-line workers and hospitals were short on PPE and sanitizer, Canadian small business owners stepped up. Distillers and brewers started making hand sanitizer. They saved lives and many did it all for free. However, when it came time for the government to order sanitizer, instead of giving these Canadian small businesses a chance to fill some orders, the Liberals sent over half a billion dollars to multinational corporations.
Could the minister responsible explain what Canadian small businesses need to do to get the support they deserve from the government?
Collapse
View Navdeep Bains Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Navdeep Bains Profile
2020-12-08 15:05 [p.3157]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that we want to support made-in-Canada solutions. That is why we had a call of action to businesses across the country, and many small businesses stepped up. Presently, approximately 50% of our procurement comes from made-in-Canada solutions from local businesses. That is up from virtually 0% in March. We are very proud of supporting Canadian businesses right across this country. We will continue to work with them and promote our made-in-Canada programs going forward.
Collapse
View Michael Barrett Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in adjournment proceedings. My question goes back to remarks I made in question period. While it was a question, I am not sure that we got a real answer.
Of course, this goes back to the WE scandal. This summer, we saw the now infamous Canada student service grant presented to Canadians worth $912 million. Before the program was able to launch, it was cancelled. We had the Prime Minister apologize for failing to recuse himself. The then finance minister apologized for failing to recuse himself.
The WE organization was right at the centre of it. The reason the recusals would have been necessary for the Prime Minister and for the former finance were that members of the Prime Minister's family had been paid nearly half a million dollars by the WE organization. He then he turned around and gave approval for Canadian tax dollars for this organization to administer a half a billion dollars.
The former finance minister's challenges came out of him having his daughter directly employed by this organization. He accepted $40,000 in free vacations from this organization. Both the then finance minister and the Prime Minister were at the cabinet table when this was approved.
We look back to very recent history and this is the first Prime Minister in Canadian history found guilty of breaking ethics laws. We have seen that detailed in the “Trudeau Report” and the “Trudeau Report II”. That was, in the first instance, for the Prime Minister's trip to billionaire island. In the second instance, it was his interference in the criminal prosecution for his friends as SNC-Lavalin.
We now have an issue that will be the subject of the third report coming from the Ethics Commissioner where we have this situation where the Prime Minister's family received half a million dollars and he turned around to give that organization half a billion dollars.
What happened when the committee investigations got too hot for the Prime Minister on the eve of documents to be disclosed to the finance committee and documents to be released to the ethics committee? The Prime Minister shut down Parliament.
We do not have to remember too far back into history when the Prime Minister said that sunlight was the best disinfectant. When the Prime Minister prorogued, he said there would be lots of time for questions when the House resumes. Then the House resumed and what did we have? Over 40 hours of filibuster from the Liberals at committee.
We are going to hear from the parliamentary secretary about Conservatives looking for scandals under every rock, but the question to the parliamentary secretary is very clear. If there is nothing to hide and if the government has the courage of its convictions, why not just let these matters come to a vote? Why filibuster? Why give rise to the appearance of corruption if, as he will tell us, there is none? We have seen them obstruct, filibuster and look to block rightful questions by the official opposition and by parliamentarians into the conduct of the government. It is unbecoming of a Prime Minister. It is shaking the confidence Canadians have in their parliamentarians and in Parliament.
We need to get back to good, ethical government. I look for Canadians to have that opportunity after the next election by electing a Conservative government with the Prime Minister being from the riding of Durham. In the meantime, we need the current, temporary occupant of the Prime Minister's Office to do his part and let the sun shine in.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-12-08 19:53 [p.3196]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would not be surprised to hear that we already have a good, ethical government, a government that understands and appreciates the importance of accountability and transparency. The opposition parties saying this is a scandal does not make it a scandal.
Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to participate in a lot of the discussions on this topic, primarily because of other commitments, but I would not concede to the official opposition that there is this huge scandal. It is interesting when my friend references, as he did today in his three or four minutes, that this is the first Prime Minister who has been held in violation by the Ethics Commissioner. There is nothing of that nature.
It was Stephen Harper who brought in the Ethics Commissioner, so it is not as though the commissioner was there for other prime ministers. However, the member tries to give the impression that we have a really bad prime minister. The Ethics Commissioner, after all, found a couple of examples where the Prime Minister made some mistakes, which the Prime Minister owned up to. He apologized where he needed to apologize.
The focus of the Conservatives in opposition, since day one, has always been what I would classify as character assassination. They do not care what the policies are. They go after the Prime Minister, the minister of finance, or any minister, and talk scandal, whether it exists or not. That is what they want to talk about.
The member referenced the filibuster, saying the Liberals are bad because we have been doing 40 hours of filibustering, as the Conservatives are being somewhat mischievous and looking under every rock for a scandal. They are calling for civil servant after civil servant to go before the committee. I think my colleagues did a good job of ensuring that this government continues, even though the opposition continues to look for made-up conspiracies, in some cases.
We continue to be focused on the coronavirus. That has been clearly demonstrated. While Conservatives would rather have civil servants answering questions about conspiracy, we prefer civil servants doing what they do best, which is serving Canadians by minimizing the negative damage of the coronavirus. That has been our priority, and that has been demonstrated with the many programs we have introduced.
We have been talking a lot about vaccinations lately, and justifiably so. I asked the Conservative opposition during debate the other day where the thousands of questions about the vaccination issue were during the summer, in July and August. No, they wanted to fan this whole notion that there is this huge scandal. There was no huge WE scandal. Yes, there were some mistakes, and those mistakes are very well established, but the government continues to focus its attention on the pandemic.
As much as the Conservatives try to divert our attention, we are continuing to focus on the coronavirus. I would encourage my friend to try to influence his caucus colleagues to do likewise.
Collapse
View Michael Barrett Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite never fails to disappoint in his responses to my comments and questions.
The Conservatives brought in these accountability measures and were not found guilty of breaking any of them because we did not. Then Canadians elected the Liberal government, which immediately fell into the trap we set for it. What was the trap? Do not break the law. Do not break the rules. That proved impossible for the Liberals. Nothing needed to be fabricated. No conspiracies needed to be formed. We have seen time and time again with the Liberals that the only thing they want to do, other than help themselves, is to help their well-connected insiders.
The member opposite needs to implore his colleagues to do the right thing and let the sunshine in and, guess what, the opposition will hold them to account on financial matters, the pandemic response and their ethical transgressions.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-12-08 19:58 [p.3197]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I assure the member we are doing the right thing. I am not saying we have been an absolutely perfect government. There have been areas where we have made some mistakes, but when that has occurred we owned up to those mistakes and where necessary apologized. We continue to work co-operatively with the Ethics Commissioner and other independent officers of Parliament.
However, let there be no doubt. We are going to continue our focus on combatting the negative impacts of the pandemic and supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. Those are the priorities of this government and they will continue to be its priorities.
Collapse
View Julie Vignola Profile
BQ (QC)
View Julie Vignola Profile
2020-12-07 14:52 [p.3037]
Expand
Madam Speaker, inexplicably, the government has not yet awarded the contract for the John G. Diefenbaker icebreaker to Davie. That ship should have been built three years ago. Ottawa even had to take the contract away from the company that had won it because it could not start construction. To this day, the feds stubbornly refuse to give the contract to Davie.
As the Liberals well know, Davie is the only shipyard in Canada capable of starting construction now. Davie has the capacity to do it.
Will the government finally announce that it is giving the John G. Diefenbaker contract to Davie?
Collapse
View Anita Anand Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Anand Profile
2020-12-07 14:53 [p.3037]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
The Davie shipyard is a strong and reliable partner for our government. We have worked with Davie on several occasions in the past.
As for her question, we have been working hard with Davie, and we will continue to do so over the coming months and years.
Collapse
View Julie Vignola Profile
BQ (QC)
View Julie Vignola Profile
2020-12-07 14:53 [p.3037]
Expand
Madam Speaker, Davie has received less than 3% of the contracts to date. Ottawa withdrew the John G. Diefenbaker contract from Seaspan because it was unable to complete it. In exchange, the government awarded Seaspan a contract for 16 small vessels.
Davie can fulfill this contract now, but Ottawa would rather give the contract back to the company it took it away from. That makes no sense. It is doing everything it can to squeeze out Quebec.
Why is Ottawa so bent on depriving Quebec of 2,000 jobs and $1 billion in investments?
Collapse
View Anita Anand Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Anand Profile
2020-12-07 14:54 [p.3037]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said in the House, all Canadian shipyards had the opportunity to respond to a request for information that expired on March 13, 2020.
The responses received by Public Services and Procurement Canada and the information collected through this process will enable the Government of Canada to determine the best practices for the coming months and years.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

Question No. 159--
Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF) program announced by the Prime Minister on May 11, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of financing provided by government through the program; (b) how many large employers have applied for financing through LEEFF; (c) how many large employers were provided with funding under LEEFF; and (d) what are the details of all financing provided, including (i) name of large employer, (ii) amount of financing, (iii) type of financing?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Enterprise Emergency Funding Corporation, CEEFC, a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, CDEV, formed to administer the large employer emergency financing facility, LEEFF, began accepting applications to the LEEFF on May 20, 2020.
The LEEFF program is one of the many measures our government has put in place to support Canadian businesses during this pandemic, including the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency business account and the Canada emergency rent subsidy.
Given the economic uncertainty surrounding COVID-19, it is unclear how many large employers will apply to the LEEFF or receive funding. CEEFC maintains an updated list of approved LEEFF loans, and funds disbursed, on its website at: www.ceefc-cfuec.ca/approved-loan.

Question No. 161--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to Requests for Proposal (RFP), Invitations to Tender (ITI) and Notices of Proposed Procurement (NPP) put forward by Public Works and Government Services Canada since March 11, 2020: (a) how many times has the national security exception been invoked; (b) for each RFP, ITI or NPP in (a), what was the (i) publication date, (ii) closing date, (iii) solicitation number, (iv) title, (v) reason given for national security exception, (vi) competitive procurement strategy, (vii) procurement entity, (viii) end user entity; (c) for each item in (b), was (i) the list of interested suppliers for the tender publicly available, (ii) the successful firm or vendor and contract value publicly disclosed; and (d) for contracts already awarded in (a), what was the (i) vendor, (ii) date the contract was awarded, (iii) value of the contract?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the national security exception provided for in all of Canada’s trade agreements allows Canada to exclude a procurement from some or all of the obligations of the relevant trade agreement(s), where Canada considers it necessary to do so in order to protect its national security interests.
That being said, there is no identifier in PSPC’s centralized database to identify contracts that received a national security exception. As a result, PSPC 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. 166--
Mr. Rob Moore:
With regard to judicial appointments made by the government, and the CBC report on October 20, 2020, that stated “[t]he Liberal Research Bureau also participates in the background checks on judicial candidates, according to federal sources and an internal government email”: (a) what role does the Liberal Research Bureau have for the government with regard to background checks for judicial candidates; (b) who in the government provides the names of potential judicial candidates to the Liberal Research Bureau; and (c) has the government provided secret security clearance to anyone in the Liberal Research Bureau so that those individuals are legally allowed to possess the names of candidates and, if so, (i) who was granted clearance, (ii) when was the clearance granted?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our government has put in a place an open, transparent and accountable process to identify and appoint highly meritorious jurists. The independent Judicial Advisory Committees make recommendations based on the merit and quality of the candidates who apply. We have appointed more than 400 jurists, women and men, to the bench. The diversity of these appointments is also unprecedented. Of the judges appointed under the new process since 2016, 55% are women, 10% are visible minorities, 5% identify as LGBTQ2, 3% are indigenous and 1% have a disability. These jurists not only meet the needs of our courts, but are also reflective of Canada’s diversity.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

Question No. 154--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to videos produced by the government for usage on government websites or for internal usage, since February 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all such videos, including (i) date, (ii) duration, (iii) title, (iv) purpose, (v) intended audience, (vi) government website on which the video was displayed, if on a public website; and (b) for each video in (a), what were the total expenditures, broken down by type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 155--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to videos produced by the government for public distribution, since February 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all such videos, including (i) date, (ii) duration, (iii) title, (iv) purpose, (v) intended audience; (b) for each video, what were the total expenditures, broken down by type of expense; and (c) through which Internet sites, social media platforms, television stations, or streaming sites was each video distributed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 156--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the COVID-19 pandemic response programs, the efficacy of such programs, and the extent of coverage of such programs: (a) how many Canadian businesses applied under each program, including the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance, the Canada Emergency Business Account, and the Business Credit Availability Program (in both the Export Development Canada and the Business Development Bank of Canada branches of the program); (b) of the applicants in (a), how many were approved; and (c) what proportion of total Canadian businesses do the successful applicants in (b) represent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 157--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the various programs offered by Export Development Canada and the Business Development Bank of Canada under the Business Credit Availability Program umbrella: (a) what is the dollar value of funds disbursed to date under each program; and (b) what is the average dollar value per successful applicant of loans issued under the programs in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 158--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Business Account program: (a) how many calls have the call centres received on each day of the program’s operation; (b) of the calls in (a), how many did the call centre respond to and how many were missed or unable to connect to an employee; (c) what is the average number of calls to the call centres per successful applicant before its application was approved; and (d) do any of the call centres employees possess experience or training in the business operations and requirements of farms?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 160--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the government’s promise to protect 25 percent of land area and 25 percent of marine area by 2025, and 30 percent of land area and 30 percent of marine area by 2030: (a) how much land and marine area is now protected; (b) how much land or marine area was protected every year over the past 20 years, broken down by year; (c) what is the historical timeline for first looking at a piece of land or marine area and when it is ultimately protected; (d) what are all the classifications for land or marine area that the government considers to be protected; (e) what is the historical timeline for consultations with First Nations peoples before a piece of land or marine area can be protected; (f) has the government identified enough specific areas of land and marine area to reach the 25 percent level by 2025 and, if so, what specific areas has it identified to meet the target; (g) has the government provided the provinces, territories, and First Nations with a detailed map or plan indicating which areas they plan on protecting and, if so, what are the details, including (i) date the plan was provided, (ii) recipients, (iii) description, including locations and square kilometres of areas planned for protection; (h) will natural resource development be banned on all areas protected to meet the 25 percent by 2025 and 30 percent by 2030 commitment and, if so, what are the details of any analysis, including findings, on such a ban; (i) will transportation of extracted natural resource products be banned on all areas protected to meet the 25 percent by 2025 and 30 percent by 2030 commitment and, if so, what are the details of any analysis, including findings, on such a ban; (j) what level of economic development will be allowed on land that is protected under the commitment to protect 25 percent by 2025 and 30 percent by 2030; and (k) does the government project meeting the 25 percent by 2025 target for protecting lands under this commitment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 162--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to Public Safety Canada's Request for Proposal (RFP) 202101232-1 Project Manager for Firearms Buyback Program: (a) what was the (i) publication date, (ii) closing date, (iii) competitive procurement strategy; (b) if the closing date in (a)(ii) has passed, (i) what were the name of the vendors that submitted a proposal, (ii) what was the name of the vendor selected; and (c) if the government contacted vendors to request they submit a proposal, (i) what was the name of the company solicited, (ii) the date of the initial contact, (iii) the reason the vendor was selected for solicitation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 163--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the consultation undertaken for Order in Council P.C. 2020-298, dated May 1, 2020: (a) what were the names of the stakeholder organizations consulted; and (b) what are the details of each consultation in (a), including (i) name and title of the individuals who represented the organization, (ii) date, (iii) method (in-person, email, telephone, etc.), (iv) location, if the consultation took place in-person, (v) recommendations or advice provided by the organization?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 164--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the moose cull in Cape Breton Highlands National Park since 2015, broken down by year: (a) what was the total cost incurred by (i) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (ii) Parks Canada; (b) for the costs in (a), what costs were incurred for (i) overtime, (ii) fuel, (iii) accommodation, (iv) meals or per diem, (v) equipment rental and maintenance, (vi) the use of all vessels such as trucks, aircrafts and boats; and (c) how many animals were harvested?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 165--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Australian F-18 Hornets purchased by the Department of National Defence: (a) how many total flight hours have the Australian F-18 Hornets flown for the Royal Canadian Air Force since the purchase was made, excluding aircraft operating for the Aeronautical Evaluation and Test Establishment; (b) how many operational flight hours have the Australian F-18 Hornets flown since the purchase was made, excluding aircraft operating for the Aeronautical Evaluation and Test Establishment; (c) on what date are the Australian F-18 Hornets expected to be put into regular service alongside the CF-18s; (d) how many Australian F-18 Hornets will be upgraded with the APG-79(v)4 radar; and (e) on what date is the upgrade of radar systems expected to be completed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 167--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to applications for approval submitted to Health Canada by ventilator manufacturers since January 1, 2020: what are the details of all applications, including (i) name of company, (ii) model, (iii) date of application, (iv) date of approval or rejection, (v) whether the application was approved or rejected, (vi) reason for rejection, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 168--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to all monetary and non-monetary contracts, grants, agreements and arrangements entered into by the government with the WE organization, the WE Charity, ME to WE, Imagine 1 Day International, Marc Kielburger and Craig Kielburger, since November 5, 2015: what are the details of such contracts, grants, agreements, or arrangements, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) minister or government official who authorized it, (iv) start and end date, (v) summary of terms, (vi) whether or not the item was made public through proactive disclosure, (vii) dates and locations of related events, if applicable, (viii) specific details of goods or services provided to the government as a result of the contract, grant, agreement or arrangement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 169--
Ms. Leona Alleslev:
With regard to advance contract award notices (ACAN) published by the government since January 1, 2020: what are the details of all ACAN published by the government, including (i) date of notice, (ii) date by which any potential competitors were required to submit a statement of capabilities, (iii) pre-selected vendor, (iv) contract value, (v) summary of goods or services, including volume, (vi) reason the government believed the pre-selected vendor was the only one capable of offering the goods or services, (vii) number of competitors who submitted a statement of capabilities, (viii) vendor awarded with the contract, if different than the pre-selected vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2020-12-07 19:02 [p.3074]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Forty-four million dollars is what the Liberals wasted in a failed deal with China's CanSino, $44 million that could have gone a long way to help struggling Canadians. It could have stayed in their pockets in the first place or it could have gone to crucial priorities like clean drinking water or mental health and recovery resources, support for victims or front-line law enforcement to fight crime and gangs. What is galling is that all of those tax dollars are all for naught and Canadians now know the Liberals do not take the warnings of Canada's own security and intelligence officials seriously.
Is it surprising? Unfortunately, it is not, because it is already clear that the government fundamentally does not take hostile foreign influence and interference in Canada seriously either. The Liberals have potentially politically exposed persons sitting in their own caucus and have refused to answer questions about it. Meanwhile, the Liberals refuse to add the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to the list of terrorist entities even though Parliament voted overwhelmingly to do so two years ago.
Security and intelligence officials of course have been raising red flags about Huawei. All of Canada's allies in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group have already banned Huawei. The Liberals promised a decision last year, but continue to dither, even while allies warn a failure to ban Huawei will harm Canada's security and intelligence-sharing relationship with the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
The Liberals also will not tell Canadians what they are doing to combat foreign interference in Canada from Chinese government agencies in the so-called Operation Fox Hunt. Chinese Canadians are being targeted and threatened by China's Communist regime and the government cannot even say what its plan is or its actions are to fight back and protect Canadians.
On November 18, this House voted for the Conservative motion that orders the government to table its decision on Huawei and for a new plan to combat escalating foreign interference in Canada from China, but it is alarmingly clear that if Liberals listened to and acted on the cautions, insight and recommendations of Canada's own security and intelligence officials and other experts, this could have been anticipated and avoided. Last week it was reported that executives at CanSino worked in a Chinese government program that has been targeted by CSIS and our other intelligence allies.
The reality is that the Government of China's thousand talents plan has been recruiting researchers and scientists to infiltrate western research organizations for the deliberate purpose of bringing sensitive intellectual property back to China. Last year, a U.S. Senate subcommittee on homeland security looked into the thousand talents plan and identified it as a threat to national security. The U.S. Senate committee found that some thousand talents plan members stole intellectual property, engaged in fraud and violated research values and ethics. They even sold proprietary information on U.S. military jet engines.
In August, CSIS warned Canadian institutions and research groups about the thousand talents plan and that China was using the program to obtain new information and technology for its own economic and military advantage. The fact is that as far back as May, CSIS was warning that Canadian institutions are at a heightened risk of intellectual property theft from China and Russia specifically and explicitly with regard to COVID-19 research.
The Globe and Mail stated the CSIS spokesperson warned, “These corrosive tactics, which are done to advance the economic and strategic objectives of hostile states, come at the expense of Canada’s national interest, including lost jobs, revenue for public services and a diminished competitive global advantage.” Therefore, even after these serious warnings from Canada's intelligence agencies, after exposure of the U.S. experience and warning, why on earth would the Liberal government proceed to sign a deal with CanSino to partner with Canada's National Research Council on vaccine development? Why did the government take $45 million in taxes and just give it to China while putting Canadian intellectual property at risk? There just is not a good answer.
In fact, former CSIS officials said that the Canadian government should have seen the red flags. Another former CSIS official said what is becoming glaringly and alarmingly obvious is that the government does not have a coordinated plan to counteract risks in partnering with China. Global News highlighted that officials cautioned, “The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, and [the National Research Council] has been abused by China before in this way, and that is why this case is so offensive.... In this case it looks like what China did, is they got what they needed (from Canada) and they stopped the vaccine shipment.”
This makes the government's actions unconscionable. Even worse, once delays in the programs were identified this summer, the Prime Minister continued to publicly defend the deal. How naive is the Prime Minister and the Liberal government?
Let us just examine the facts. The intelligence community constantly warns against intellectual property theft from the Government of China. The Liberal government signs a deal with China-based CanSino, which has executives who have been linked to the Chinese Communist government's thousand talents plan, which is the very program that engages in intellectual property theft. Canadian researchers work with those same Chinese researchers on vaccine development. China delays sending shipment to Canada. The Prime Minister doubles down on his support for the deal in Canada. Intelligence officials again warn about hostile foreign interference related to intellectual property theft. China refuses to send the vaccine to Canada—shocker—and the deal is scrapped, wasting $44 million of taxpayers' money and an unknown amount of Canadian intellectual property.
It is truly unreal. It actually seems like it could hardly even be true, but it is true. Despite all the warnings from officials across the board, the government still went full steam ahead. It is frankly incredibly frustrating to watch, and even more frustrating that the government will not give Canadians straight answers to basic questions about the deal, or basic answers and information that could be shared about what the government is actually doing to combat foreign interference and protect Canadians' national and personal security.
Conservatives have asked multiple times if the government was briefed by security officials before signing this deal. The only response is talking points about listening to security officials, so that must mean the government was briefed. It was briefed and then chose to ignore the evidence and advice. If senior decision-makers were not briefed, that is a major problem. Either way, the deception about it is, too.
Another former CSIS official says that China was also trying to gain leverage over Canada in the Meng Wanzhou extradition case. The official said, “blocking the vaccine shipment also sends the (geopolitical) message...if you really want to work with us, you need to toe the line'".
The government is racking up unsustainable record deficits right now. That said, I do believe many Canadians, small businesses and communities needed efficient, effective and expeditious support during these months. I bet what most Canadians will not understand is that their federal government took $44 million, basically gave it over to China and received absolutely nothing in return.
The Chinese government set a trap, and despite all the warning signs, all the intelligence reports and all the proof throughout the recent history of China's escalation against Canada, such as detaining Canadians in China, violating their rights there and at home, threatening Canadians about Hong Kong there and at home and escalating against our free and democratic allies and against vulnerable developing countries and around the world, the Liberal government walked right into it.
The government had other options, but for whatever reason, the Liberals signed off on this $44-million deal and now that is money Canadian taxpayers will never get back. Conservatives are opposed to this spending measure in the estimates, and for the sake of future Canadian taxpayer dollars, Canadian intellectual property and the safety and security of all Canadians, I really do sincerely hope it is the last time these Liberals make the same mistake. After seeing how they acted over the last number of months, I just cannot say I am optimistic.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-12-07 19:11 [p.3076]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult at times to appreciate what members in the Conservative Party are saying because they tend to mislead in different ways, whether it is this member or other members of the Conservatives. An example is when they were saying, about the agreement she is referencing, that the government started to have negotiations with other companies after that agreement went south. We know that is factually incorrect.
The reality is the Conservatives seem to have two faces when it comes to China. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, he went to China and got a wonderful trade agreement. When he came back to Canada, he said that China received him so well that it was going to give him two pandas to bring to Canada.
Could the member reflect on why there is inconsistency in the treatment toward China today versus when Stephen Harper was prime minister?
Collapse
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2020-12-07 19:12 [p.3076]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to reflect on how disheartening and really brutal it is to see a senior member of the Liberal cabinet refuse to actually answer any of the serious issues raised in my remarks tonight and what is being publicly reported, which are security, safety, cybersecurity and intellectual property threats to Canada and to Canadians.
It is escalating by China around this issue, around the world and with other countries, and that senior member gets up and says this. I will remind him of the facts again. The intelligence community has constantly warned against intellectual property theft from the Government of China. The Liberal government signed the deal with China-based CanSino and those executives have been linked to the Chinese Communist government's precise plan specifically to engage in intellectual property theft for its own military and economic advantage.
That member should ask Canadians about that and answer—
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to some of the votes in the main estimates that we oppose. I will be speaking to the votes relating to foreign affairs, including $44 million for a transaction with a Chinese company.
First, however, I would like to talk about this government's relationship with China. Everyone knows that this Prime Minister has expressed his admiration for the Chinese communist system. In 2013 he even said, and I quote, “There is a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.” It was already clear, then, where our Prime Minister was headed and what he envisioned for Canada's relationship with China.
In committee today, we once again heard the rhetoric that Stephen Harper tried to build a relationship with China in 2008 and 2009. That is true, but it was a different time. That was nearly 12 years ago. Canada had a business relationship with China at the time, but there were some concerns. Also, China was different, so much so that, in his opening remarks before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made it clear that the China of 2020 is not the China of 2015, when this government came to power. He even clearly said that we needed to pay attention. Even the minister was sending the message in his speech before the committee that we have to be careful when it comes to China.
I will come back to the matter before us, the votes or expenditures that this government is asking us to approve. I will talk about one transaction between this government and CanSino Biologics, a Chinese company. The amount of $44 million was put on the line as part of an agreement with that company for the development of vaccines, even though the government knew that the company had direct ties to the Chinese communist regime. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated, the China of 2020 is not the China of years past. Once again the government decided to take $44 million of Canadian taxpayers' money for an agreement with a company that has direct ties to the Communist Party of China.
Last week, the media also revealed that the company's founding members had direct ties to the Communist Party of China and that Canadian researchers had been recruited by the Communist Party as part of the thousand talents program. This program was established to send information directly to the Chinese government. The Prime Minister knew how it worked and still went ahead with an agreement with CanSino Biologics using taxpayers' money, our money.
In the end, the Chinese government stole our intellectual property. Under this agreement, Canada had to transfer the intellectual property to CanSino Biologics, which then cancelled the agreement and kept the information. Once again, this is proof that we cannot trust the Chinese government. Of course that does not apply to the Chinese people. That is altogether different.
There are many examples of this with China. Everyone knows, and everyone talks about it. One example is Falun Gong practitioners. These people have been fighting non-stop to protect the Chinese people from ideological conversion, forced re-education, forced labour, torture and organ harvesting programs. Everyone is aware of this.
The problem with China is that it is such a big economic power that people are afraid to stand up to it. Just look at what the current Prime Minister said in 2013 about China. However, the opposition and the Conservative Party have a duty to say that enough is enough and we need to stand up to this.
I am going to speak about another recent relationship between the government and a company owned by the Chinese communist regime, Nuctech. The Canadian government, through the Canada Border Services Agency, signed an agreement for equipment, which has already taken effect. The government also recently gave this company a contract to install X-ray machines in our embassies around the world.
Some members opposite have started saying that those machines were not connected directly, that it was not dangerous and so on, but that is not the issue. The problem is that Nuctech is known worldwide for fraud and corruption. All sorts of measures have been taken against this company around the world. It works directly with the Chinese People's Liberation Army to conduct espionage.
Perhaps the machines intended for our embassies were not connected directly, but who is to say that someone could not enter an embassy somewhere in the world when the equipment needs maintenance and install an electronic device in the machine to transmit information?
The biggest problem is that the government is doing business with Nuctech, a security equipment company that operates around the world and whose only mission is to collect intelligence and transmit it to the head of the Chinese Communist Party. A $6.8-million contract was on the table. Without the work of the media and the opposition parties, the government would probably have sent $6.8 million to Nuctech, and that company's equipment would be in our embassies.
Security officials and agencies tell us this relationship needs to end. Everyone says so. Major changes need to be made to the way Canada buys equipment. The government must not give Canadian taxpayers' money to companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. That is all there is to it. It is not Conservative ideology. I think the Bloc Québécois agrees and the Liberals know it, but their hands are tied because their leader sees things differently. That is the Liberals' problem at the moment.
It is all there. We have damning evidence and security reports from all over. Even security agencies working for the government send briefings about this, and there are public reports about it all. I am not talking about state secrets. I am talking about public reports.
We therefore oppose this $44-million expenditure in this year's estimates, when hundreds of billions of dollars have already been spent to deal with COVID-19. At some point, it has to stop. Some might argue that $44 million is not much compared to billions, but it is still a lot of money. Did anyone think about how many taxpayers it takes to raise $44 million? A taxpayer who earns $50,000 a year pays $20,000 in taxes. It takes a lot of people, who are giving their money away for nothing.
As a final point, I would like to mention Huawei, which poses the same problem. For two years now we have been saying that this company must be banned from Canada's 5G network for the same reasons, namely, security and economic reasons. If China manages to steal our intellectual property, it is the whole of Canada that loses.
When we look at the facts and at how this works, it is obvious to us that the Prime Minister is saying yes and the Conservative opposition is saying no. It is as simple as that.
Collapse
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Don Davies Profile
2020-12-04 11:27 [p.2970]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, only the most tone-deaf government would say it stands with seniors by letting the standards get so bad it had to send the army in.
Canadians are eagerly awaiting a safe, effective COVID vaccine so that they can see their loved ones and return to their daily lives without worrying about spreading the virus. Yesterday, Pfizer confirmed it will be distributing half the amount of vaccine doses it had originally proposed, citing supply chain issues. We heard from the government that Canadians are getting four million doses of Pfizer vaccine before March. Is that still the plan?
Will the minister explain what Pfizer's supply problems mean for Canadians?
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-12-04 11:27 [p.2970]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, we have been consistent in communicating our delivery window in Q1 of 2021. Given the number of variables and the novelty of the process, we are still communicating a delivery window in Q1 of 2021. We do not anticipate any impact on delivery of the Pfizer vaccine to Canada, which is expected to begin in the first quarter of 2021 as planned.
Collapse
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2020-12-04 11:31 [p.2970]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the member should stop blustering angrily and just, actually, answer the questions.
It is increasingly clear that the Liberals do not take hostile foreign influence seriously, and Canadians are suffering the consequences. They refuse to answer questions on a potentially politically exposed person in their own caucus. They will not make a decision to ban Huawei, going against our own intelligence officials and our allies. Now it seems the Liberals put all hopes for a vaccine in a company whose executives worked in a program investigated by CSIS. It is unreal.
Was the government briefed on potential security threats about partnering with CanSino?
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-12-04 11:32 [p.2971]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly put in place plans for PPE. We have collaborated with provinces. We have risen to the occasion.
We have put in place plans for the acquisition of vaccines, and have promising candidates and an amazing portfolio of vaccine candidates. We now have plans for logistics and distribution. We are working very closely, of course, with our partners in the provinces and across this country on that.
What we do not have is the response that the member should provide on behalf of her party. That member should look behind her and talk to the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington and tell him to stop this anti-vaccine nonsense.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Collapse
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2020-12-04 11:33 [p.2971]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, again, there is a really long answer and lots of blustering and berating, but no actual concrete answers to the question I asked.
Here is the truth. If the Liberals actually took security officials seriously and actually listened to them, Canada would not be so far behind the rest of our allies. On Global News, a former CSIS official said that the government is ignoring security warnings and lacks a coordinated plan to combat the risks from China. He said, “The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, and [the National Research Council] has been abused by China before in this way”.
How could the Liberals just ignore all the security threats when partnering with CanSino?
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-12-04 11:33 [p.2971]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, we have been negotiating vaccine candidate agreements since last summer. We have a very diversified portfolio and we are very confident in the promising news that comes out.
What we want to understand and what is very important for this member to do is to stand up on behalf of her party and put an end to these crazy anti-science, anti-vaxxing, anti-end-of-pandemic conspiracy theories that emanate from the dark recesses of the Conservative Party.
Collapse
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-12-04 11:56 [p.2976]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, did he say before Christmas?
I think the President of the Treasury Board is losing control of his secretariat. This week in committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Treasury Board had lost control of accountability. Nobody really knows what this government is actually spending.
The President of the Treasury Board has also lost control of respect for official languages legislation within government. It approved the WE Charity contract without conducting an official languages analysis. This is a very bad situation. Who will call the President of the Treasury Board to order?
Collapse
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2020-12-04 11:57 [p.2976]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, our government is determined to ensure that our programs and services produce results for Canadians.
In their review of the proposed Canada student service grant, Treasury Board officials explored a number of avenues to ensure due diligence. The secretariat determined that the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth had the necessary authority under the policy on transfer payments to set up the program.
Collapse
View Kelly McCauley Profile
CPC (AB)
View Kelly McCauley Profile
2020-12-04 11:57 [p.2976]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board admitted he violated Treasury Board rules on the $900-million WE deal. He admitted he failed in his obligation to perform the required official languages analysis for the WE deal just so they could line the pockets of Liberal insiders.
I am an anglophone member from Edmonton, and I am standing up for the French language. Why are francophone members from Quebec not standing up for French?
Collapse
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2020-12-04 11:58 [p.2976]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, promoting official bilingualism and defending the French language have been a top priority for our government since 2015.
French is here to stay. It is part of our history, our identity and our future. It is our duty to defend and promote it. On this side of the House, we are proud to be francophones and francophiles, and we are proud of the concrete action we have taken to defend French.
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-12-04 12:24
Expand

Question No. 142--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the cancelled tender entitled “TSPS – Solution – Compensation Model and Program Design Options for a Potential Buyback Program for Recently Prohibited Firearms (202101502)”: (a) for each of the 15 invited bidders, what are the rationales for why each firm was invited to participate in this tender, listed by firm; (b) what communications were made between the department and these firms, including email, phone and in-person meeting, broken down by name of the firm and type of contact; (c) what is the total number of firms that submitted a bid by September 9, 2020; (d) what are the names of all firms that submitted a bid by September 9, 2020; (e) what are the names of all firms that indicated interest in a revised process, should a revised tender be offered in the future; and (f) what information was provided to those invited to participate in order to help prepare their bids, including (i) the list of models of newly prohibited firearms, (ii) the number of firearms that were expected to bought back, (iii) the estimate of the total number of newly prohibited firearms that are lawfully owned in Canada, (iv) the estimated total cost to buy back these newly prohibited firearms, (v) the source of the estimates referred to in (iii) and (iv), (vi) the sources that are considered acceptable for determining the fair market value for the newly prohibited firearms, (vii) the detailed timelines associated with the anticipated work, (viii) the deadline to begin a buyback program in order to provide adequate time for lawful firearms owners to comply with the buyback program before the current amnesty expires, (ix) direction, explanation or context on provincial versus federal jurisdiction, (x) the tracking numbers for all notes, reference and briefing materials that were not included in the tender documents but were made available to the invited firms to assist in preparing a potential bid, (xi) other information?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 143--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regards to the May 1, 2020, Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2020), what are the details of all documents prepared by any agency or department related to this order, including (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) tracking number, (vi) summary of the contents, (vii) form (memos, letters, emails, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 144--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regards to the May 1, 2020, Order in Council 2020-0298 and the annexed Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted: (a) what are the details of all documents prepared by any agency or department related to this order, including (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) tracking number, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) form (memos, letters, emails, etc.); (b) what are the details of each time a model of firearm was added to the Firearms Reference Table between May 1, 2020, and October 9, 2020, including (i) the make and model, (ii) the day they were added to the table, (iii) the rationale for adding them to the table (ie. variant, bore size, muzzle velocity, etc), (iv) all actions broken down by date, type of action, form of communication to reach firearms owners affected by the addition of a firearm to the Firearms Reference Table; (c) what are the details of each time a firearm was removed from the Firearms Reference Table, between May 1, 2020, and October 9, 2020, including, (i) the make and model, (ii) the day they were removed from the table, (iii) the rationale for removing them from the table; (d) what is the cost to notify firearms owners and businesses of the changes imposed by the Order in Council and annexed regulations, including (i) the total cost of all notification activities, (ii) the number of hours of work required by government employees to issue these notices, including Crown corporations (ex. Canada Post), (iii) the number of total pieces of mail issued, (iv) the total cost to issue all mail pieces, (v) the number of emails issued, (vi) the total cost to issue all emails, (vii) the total number of telephone calls made, (viii) the total cost to make these telephone calls; and (e) what are the references cited in all policy development and briefing materials that were provided to a minister or to the Privy Council Office related to the Order in Council and the annexed regulations, including research reports (internal and external), media stories, Statistics Canada reports and research, third party individuals and organizations that provided feedback or participated in consultations, or any other source that was footnoted in these materials, broken down by the title of the government document the reference was included in?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 145--
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to information held by either Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada: (a) on what date did the government become aware that specific rapid tests for COVID-19 were approved by other governments in the G7, broken down by country and by specific test; (b) of the rapid tests approved by other G7 governments, which ones have been approved for use in Canada, and on what date was each test approved; and (c) for each test in (b) that has not been approved for use in Canada, why has the test not been approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 147--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to government spending on water infrastructure since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount spent on water infrastructure for First Nations communities; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) year, (ii) First Nations community; (c) what is the total amount spent on water infrastructure in developing countries; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) year, (ii) country?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 148--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government's international development assistance funding since November 4, 2015: (a) how much funding has the government provided to or through the WE Charity, WE Organization, or any WE-affiliated organization; (b) what are the details of any projects funded through the funding in (a), including (i) project description, (ii) amount of government funding, (iii) date the agreement was signed, (iv) project start date, (v) location of the project, (vi) recipient of the funding; (c) for each project in (b), what type of funding was provided (grant, interest-free loan, etc.), and what were the terms of each funding agreement; and (d) for each project in (b), did the government use performance metrics to evaluate the results of each project and, if so, (i) what performance metrics were used, (ii) were those performance metrics met?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 149--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to funding provided to the Canada China Business Council (CCBC), including grants, sponsorships, ticket purchases, and any other form of expenditure by any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity since December 1, 2015: (a) what are the details of all government expenditures on or funding provided to the CCBC, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) type of expenditure (grant, ticket purchase, etc), (iv) purpose of expenditure, (v) location of associated event, if applicable; (b) how much funding did Destination Canada provide to the CCBC to sponsor the 2020 annual general meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beijing; (c) how many government representatives were in attendance at the meetings, and what are their titles; and (d) what is the total of all expenditures incurred by the government in relation to the meeting, including any travel-related costs, broken down by type of expense (travel, ticket purchase, signage, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 150--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance: (a) how much did the government pay (i) MCAP, (ii) First Canadian Title (FCT), to deliver the program; and (b) what specific deliverables did MCAP and FCT provide to the government in relation to the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 151--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) support, including tax credits, provided to firms based outside of Canada, since 2016: (a) what is the total amount of SR&ED support provided annually to (i) Facebook, (ii) Google, (iii) Amazon, (iv) Apple, (v) Netflix, broken down by year and by type of support; and (b) what is the total amount of SR&ED support provided to firms based outside of Canada, broken down by year and by type of support?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 153--
Mrs. Tamara Jansen:
With regard to the ongoing transition in the city of Surrey, British Columbia, from a Royal Canadian Mounted Police force to a municipal police force: (a) will the government be providing use of its shared information management and IT services through Shared Services Canada to support the new municipal force, and, if so, has a costing arrangement been completed between the city of Surrey and the government; (b) if not, on what date will Shared Services Canada cease to provide IT support to the police in Surrey; (c) has the city of Surrey been notified of the decision related to IT support, and, if so, on what date was the city notified; (d) how many meetings involving officials at the Assistant Deputy Minister or higher rank have occurred where the transition was discussed, and what are the dates and list of attendees for each meeting; (e) how many times have federal officials attended meetings of the federal Surrey Police Transition Committee, and what were the (i) dates of each meeting, (ii) titles of federal officials in attendance; (f) what is the total value of the inventoried IT assets and systems; (g) what is the total value of the inventoried assets and equipment held at the Surrey detachment, and on what date was the latest inventory conducted; and (h) what is the government's projected timeline on the completion of the transition?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Patty Hajdu Profile
2020-12-03 11:13 [p.2888]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to the Government of Canada's work to ensure that Canadians have timely access to a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19. There are now more than 200 COVID-19 candidate vaccines in various stages of development around the world, with dozens in different stages and phases of clinical trials.
This week, the vaccine manufactured by Pfizer became the first to be approved in the United Kingdom. Many other manufacturers are expected to submit their final data to the regulatory bodies in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union soon.
As things stand now, we expect vaccines to become available in Canada in early 2021. After a long and very difficult year, this is welcome news and news for which we have been preparing for many months.
Canada's vaccination programs and regulatory approval systems are among the best in the world. We have well-established systems to deliver vaccines to Canadians and we have a long history of delivering vaccines for diseases like influenza, measles and polio. We will benefit from this experience as well as the infrastructure that we have built up over many decades.
Over the past several months, there has been a lot going on behind the scenes to ensure that Canada is well positioned to obtain and deliver a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine to Canadians in 2021. From the earliest days of the pandemic, we knew we had to start to lay the groundwork for success. We acted quickly to put the mechanisms in place to ensure that when a vaccine was ready, Canada would be ready. One of those mechanisms is procurement.
Based on the recommendations of the COVID-19 vaccine task force, Canada has signed agreements with seven different companies to reserve COVID-19 vaccine doses for Canadians.
We still do not know which vaccine will be most effective at preventing transmission. That is why we have pre-ordered the most promising vaccine candidates, with the possibility of increasing our order to have enough for all Canadians.
Also, the government has committed $220 million to the COVAX Facility. I want to thank my colleague, the Minister of International Development, for that work. The COVAX Facility and its advanced market commitment is designed to guarantee rapid, fair and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines for every country in the world to slow the pandemic.
This agreement includes the option of acquiring doses for 20% of Canadians and a commitment to invest $220 million supplementary to provide vaccines to countries that are developing.
With these purchase agreements in place, the next step is to ensure that the new vaccines are safe and effective.
Vaccine development is highly complex and is a long process. Now in normal times it can take years to carry out extensive research needed to produce safe and effective product. However, these are not normal times and we are fighting a pandemic and human lives are hanging in the balance. The clock is ticking and scientists and researchers have leapt to the challenge. They have been working all around the world to accelerate development of a vaccine. This includes collaborating and taking advantage of the latest innovations.
Health Canada is the regulatory body that reviews new vaccines to ensure that they are safe and effective and approves them. These reviews normally take place once all clinical trials are complete and the results have been released.
However, given the urgency of COVID-19, we recognize the need for flexibility early to expedite this process without compromising safety, quality and efficacy. That is why this fall I signed an interim order to import, sell and advertise drugs during COVID-19. This interim order allows us to accept rolling submissions for drugs and vaccines. This means that manufacturers can submit data as it becomes available.
Once an authorized vaccine is in use, Canada continues to monitor its safety through post-market surveillance. This system allows public health authorities to respond quickly to changing trends or unusual, adverse events. So far, Health Canada has received submissions for authorizations of vaccines for COVID-19 from four companies: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna and, most recent, Janssen.
As these submissions are carefully reviewed, we are preparing for a successful rollout and distribution of the vaccines to Canadians. This will be an ambitious and complex program.
Vaccines are typically sent directly from the manufacturer to provinces and territories. However, with certain COVID-19 vaccines a different approach is required. Due to their novel nature, they will have different sets of logistical considerations.
For example, ultra-low temperature vaccines need to be kept at very cold temperatures, up to -80°C and these will need to be delivered directly from the manufacturer to the point of use and transport will be controlled by the manufacturer. Other frozen vaccines will be transported by a federally contracted logistics service provider from the manufacturer to the point of delivery, as identified by the provinces and territories.
Of course, this requires deep collaboration with provinces and territories. The Government of Canada is working closely with all of them as well as other public health partners to ensure the process is timely, fair and well-coordinated.
As I mentioned earlier, we expect vaccines to become available in early 2021. Initial supplies of vaccines will be limited, and just three million Canadians will have access to them.
Since the number of vaccines will be limited in the early stages, we will have to strategically determine who will be vaccinated first.
In Canada, we look after the most vulnerable among us. That is why the Government of Canada is working with external advisers to identify the high-priority groups that will benefit the most from being vaccinated.
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization is a standing body, an external advisory body that provides the Public Health Agency of Canada with independent, ongoing and timely medical, scientific and public health advice in response to questions from the agency relating to immunization.
On November 3, the committee released its preliminary guidance on key populations for early COVID-19 vaccination and outlined a targeted vaccination program. The committee identified several key populations including those that are at high risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19, such as the elderly and others with high-risk conditions; those who are most likely to transmit COVID-19 to those at high risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19; and workers essential to maintaining the COVID-19 response, such as health care workers and caregivers in long-term care facilities and people whose living or working conditions put them at an elevated risk of infection or where infection could have disproportionate consequences, including indigenous communities.
These recommendations will help provincial, territorial and federal authorities decide how to distribute the vaccine. It is also important to note that we are working actively with national indigenous organizations to determine how to distribute the vaccine properly and respectfully in indigenous communities.
Although the initial supply will be limited, I want to be clear that there will ultimately be enough vaccine for every Canadian who wishes to be vaccinated. However, as our country is geographically large, we will face some logistical challenges, such as the need for ultra-cold storage, reaching remote communities and coordinating between levels of government to name a few.
In the face of such challenges, no one is more effective or has more experience than the Canadian Armed Forces. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Canadian Armed Forces have been fully involved in the Government of Canada's action.
Last week, Major-General Dany Fortin was named vice president of logistics and operations at the Public Health Agency of Canada, and he is overseeing logistical planning. He joins the 27 Canadian Armed Forces personnel who are already seconded to the agency, including logistics experts, operational planners, pharmacists, health care administrators, engineers and information technology experts. We thank the Canadian Armed Forces for their assistance and expertise.
In addition, the Public Health Agency is also taking action to prepare for the rollout of the vaccine. The stockpile has sites all across the country and has already started sharing necessary supplies with provinces and territories. This includes millions of needles, syringes, alcohol swabs as well as freezers for vaccine storage.
It is important to note that each provincial and territorial government is responsible for deciding how to deploy COVID-19 vaccines within their jurisdiction as well as who will get vaccinated first. The Government of Canada is working closely with provinces and territories, first nations, Inuit and Métis partners to help them get ready. This includes ensuring they have the necessary supplies and equipment as vaccines need to be managed safely and securely while ensuring rapid and efficient delivery.
I know Canadians are encouraged by the progress that we have made. Vaccines are on the horizon and they are almost within reach. We are about to embark on a future that is safer, healthier and, indeed, more secure for all of us.
In the meantime, we cannot let our guard down. We must continue our efforts and continue to practise physical distancing, wash our hands and wear a mask. That is all the more important now that the cold weather is forcing us inside and the holidays are approaching.
We need to stay vigilant as we wait for a vaccine to be ready. We need to support our seniors. We need to support our neighbours with high-risk conditions. We owe it to our health care providers and essential workers. They are counting on us to protect them. I know people have been trying really hard and we need to keep trying for the next several months.
The government is taking every step necessary to authorize safe and effective vaccines quickly and to distribute them to everyone who wants them. We will be ready. Until then, we have to stay focused and steadfast in our public health measures, because, together, we will see a brighter future, one where everyone is protected from COVID-19.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-12-03 11:31 [p.2892]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the minister and Prime Minister often talk about the portfolio of vaccines and why that is so important in ensuring Canadians are going to be covered when the time is right is and we are not just dependent on one vaccine.
Could the minister expand on why that is so important for us?
Collapse
Results: 1 - 60 of 853 | Page: 1 of 15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data