Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 19
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
View Eric Duncan Profile
2021-06-03 18:55 [p.7942]
Expand
Madam Speaker, 13 years ago next week, the chamber of the House of Commons was filled with tears and a lot of raw emotion. Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the apology for the treatment that residential school survivors experienced at federally funded schools across the country. It marked a milestone in the healing and reconciliation process for former students.
One of those former students is Bill Sunday, a member of Akwesasne, which is in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. At that time, the grand chief of the council, Chief Tim Thompson, brought seven survivors from the community of Akwesasne to hear the words of the Government of Canada that day. I am thinking of Bill tonight and the number of residents of Akwesasne who, over the course of numerous generations, have faced hardship and discrimination.
What came of the apology at that time was the idea of establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. As alluded to in other speeches, its report came out with tangible calls to action back in 2015. To give context, that is six years ago, or 2,100 days that our federal government has had to respond to and enact the change that has been called for.
We are here today with nowhere near the pace and volume of completion and tangible progress that Canadians want us to have. A few more than a handful of calls to action have been marked as completed; others are under way. However, if we were to speak to indigenous Canadians, first nations leadership and any Canadian, they would agree that the pace of change and of enacting reconciliation has not moved in the past six years as fast as it needs to.
On Monday, our leader, the leader of the official opposition, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, and over the course of the last couple of days, after the advancement of Bill C-5 regarding a day for truth and reconciliation, which is positive, all parties have worked together to advance that legislation. It was one of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Our leader also wrote in that letter that the legislation we are debating here tonight should come back up, be moved forward, as it will be tonight, and eventually be passed. It will pass with support from our caucus and I believe from all of Parliament.
This is an important measure; do not get me wrong. However, and I say this respectfully, when we look at all the measures we need to do, the tangible, real, meaningful reconciliation is yet to come. There are a lot of big items that we as a Parliament and we as a country need to confront and address in a timely manner.
I want to acknowledge the discussions of another piece of legislation, Bill C-15, which has had many hours of debate here and in committee and is now over in the Senate. I had the honour and privilege of speaking to it, and with my perspective as a young Canadian; as somebody who has a first nations community, Akwesasne, in his riding; and as part of our Conservative caucus, I took a look at the details of the legislation. I want to speak about the opposition to Bill C-15, not because of a lack of support for reconciliation, but to illustrate to Canadians that our work as parliamentarians is far from done and we know that. What I took note of today, as we talked about the motion, is that the work we do here needs to be better.
Let us consider Bill C-15, and a lot of the words and descriptions in it, such as the description of free, prior and informed consent and its definition, or lack thereof. The NDP's opposition day motion today is an important one that I am proud to support. The first few parts of the motion speak to ending litigation in courts, where the government, first nations communities and residential school survivors are spending years and years and millions and millions of dollars, with more and more emotion going from there. That has been exacerbated because we are not taking the time for consultation and the details.
I completely support the idea of UNDRIP and the principles behind it. The details matter on that. I think it is important for Canadians, as the NDP motion said today, as Parliament will be calling on when that vote comes up in the coming days, that we see real, meaningful changes in this country, not more lawsuits, more delays, motions and millions of dollars being spent on lawyers, but rather on frontline differences to first nations communities and indigenous Canadians in every part of this country.
I want to focus some of my time tonight on the fact that we are expediting this legislation with all-party co-operation to move forward, because there are other parts of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that need to move forward now, urgently, and Canadians are saying that.
Thinking of the news that every single Canadian has had to take in over the course of the last week, of the discovery of 215 children in unmarked graves at the former Kamloops residential school, I look, from a personal perspective, at my life and my lived experience. I am 33 years old. I have an amazing, loving family that helped raise me. I am so grateful for the opportunity that I received in public education: the teachers, staff and students at Inkerman Public School, Nationview Public School and North Dundas District High School. My family and my experience in public education helped make me who I am today.
I could not imagine being a child torn away from my parents never to see them again, going to a school hundreds of kilometres away and receiving horrific treatment. We have an example that was laid bare before us last week. Children ended up buried in unmarked graves, only recognized recently. These children did not have the opportunities that so many of us were fortunate to have, surrounded by loving and caring parents in an education system and experience that were second to none. To have them deprived of that, to have that ending, is completely unacceptable.
In the letter I referenced, we talk about the work we need to do as a Parliament. We need to address this specific, dark part of our history. I was rightfully corrected after one of my social media posts where I was struggling to come up with the proper thing to say about this news. Somebody said that it is not all history, that there are still residential school survivors here today living the experience each and every day. It is not history to them. It is lived experience that they have to deal with and struggle with each and every day.
I think parliamentarians from all parties in every part of this country will hear that, yes, we need to move forward on Bill C-5. We need to move forward on this piece of legislation and on Bill C-8. We need to fund the investigation of all former residential schools in Canada where unmarked graves may exist, including where the 215 children were already discovered in Kamloops. We need to ensure that proper resources are allocated for reinterment, commemoration and the honour of any individuals discovered at any of those sites, according to the wishes of their family. We also need to develop a detailed, urgent and meaningful way of educating Canadians on the real and lived experiences of those there.
I am going to wrap up my comments tonight by bringing them back to my community in eastern Ontario. As I wrap up, I think of Leona Cook, an elder from Akwesasne. She actually lives on the American side of Akwesasne, but her story goes a long way. She was sent from Massena to western New York in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls area to a residential school. This tragedy goes even beyond borders. They took her shoes away when she went to school. Her brothers also went there, but they were placed on a different side of the campus, and she rarely, if ever, saw them.
I watched a video earlier today as I was preparing my remarks, and Leona was in it. She said, “I don't want their apology. I don't want anything from them. I would hope that they learn to treat people better than they treated us. You can't make people be somebody they don't want to be.”
We can take the lessons and the words of Leona Cook, embody them in our work and move forward on major sections of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that will matter to Canadians.
I look forward to the questions and comments and supporting the legislation before us.
Collapse
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2021-06-03 19:26 [p.7946]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I am dismayed that, despite it being six years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action had been tabled, the Liberal government has been exceedingly slow at implementing even the simplest of the calls to action.
According the CBC Beyond 94 tracker, it remains that there are still only 10 out of 94 TRC recommendations completed as of June 1, 2021. Bill C-8 is emblematic of the pace at which the Liberal government has been moving with reconciliation. The concerning rate at which the government has been addressing the calls to action leads me to question the government’s timeline and commitment to fully implement all the calls to action.
During the five-year anniversary on December 15, 2020, the commissioners of the TRC report issued a joint statement to indicate that the government’s process has been too slow. Former TRC commissioner Ms. Marie Wilson highlighted that revising the citizenship guidebook and updating the oath of citizenship to reflect a more inclusive history of indigenous peoples and recognition of their rights was low-hanging fruit among the TRC recommendations.
Yet, this is the third time it has been introduced. In the years that led up to it, of the official list of organizations consulted provided by IRCC, only four were indigenous organizations and the others were six organizations focusing on immigration, including a couple of Catholic organizations, demonstrating that the imprint of colonialism persists to this day.
While the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs heard from a number of witnesses that the wording could have been improved, they were ultimately in favour of passing it so that we could move on to focusing on some of the more major calls to action. Indeed, the Liberals and Conservatives voted down NDP amendments that would address the concerns raised by adding a recognition of inherent rights of first nations as well as aboriginal title rights in the citizenship oath. This is shameful.
The government cannot say it supports the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which explicitly speaks to free, prior and informed consent. Article 10 states:
Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.
Yet we continue to see ongoing violations of this very article. This is a clear example of the ongoing colonialism that persists today.
Let us look at what is happening with the Mi’kmaq fishers. DFO has decided that they cannot fish now even though this is a clear violation of their treaty rights to earn a moderate livelihood. UNDRIP stipulates that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, which is what indigenous fishers are trying to do, earn a living, feed their families and, in some cases, work their way out of poverty.
Now, as a result of the failures of the government to live up to its obligations, they are even afraid of violence from non-indigenous fishers. Their property has been burned, they have been threatened and assaulted, and the government has offered no plan to ensure their safety. This is not reconciliation. In fact, this is what systemic racism and discrimination looks like.
Why is the government not doing everything it can to protect the rights and safety of indigenous fishers? Former TRC commissioner Marie Wilson also pointed out that calls to action 53 and 56 call for the creation of a national council for reconciliation. One of its core functions would be to provide oversight and hold the government accountable to the progress on implementing other TRC calls to action.
The fact that these TRC recommendations are missing in action and have not been among the first that were implemented shows a lack of interest by the government in actually implementing these calls to action. It also does not want to be held accountable in an independent, transparent way.
On the five-year anniversary of the TRC report, Murray Sinclair was critical of the slow pace the government has been moving and said:
It is very concerning that the federal government still does not have a tangible plan for how they will work towards implementing the Calls to Action.
This is how the Liberals treat what they say is their most important relationship. The Liberals are abusing the goodwill of indigenous peoples. As they say with a straight face how much they respect indigenous rights, and cry crocodile tears about what indigenous people have always known in light of the findings of the mass grave of indigenous children at the Kamloops residential school site, they continue to take indigenous children to court.
The Liberals cannot claim to honour the spirits of children who died in residential schools while they continue to take indigenous kids to court. The Liberals cannot claim to take their role in reconciliation seriously when they force survivors of residential schools to wage legal battles for recognition and compensation. I am calling for real action, real justice and real reconciliation, not just more words and symbolic gestures. I am calling on the federal government to stop its legal battles against indigenous kids and survivors of residential schools: battles that have cost millions of taxpayer dollars.
In 2020, Dr. Cindy Blackstock stated that the government had spent at least $9 million fighting against first nations children at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These children do not get a second childhood. As we are sitting here, the government is still fighting survivors of St. Anne's residential school. This cannot be acceptable to anyone who says they want to honour the lives of indigenous children who were ripped away from their loved ones and were subjected to untold abuse and horror. Too many died alone, too many went missing and too many are still suffering from the effects of colonization.
Make no mistake: Genocide was committed against indigenous peoples, and successive Liberal and Conservative governments have continued a genocide against first nations, Métis and Inuit across the country. These are crimes against humanity and it is time for Canada to take full responsibility. I am calling on the Liberals to end their court challenges, to work with survivors, and to ensure that all resources needed are made available to survivors and their communities.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found Canada's discrimination to be “wilful and reckless” and “a worst-case scenario” resulting in unnecessary family separations for thousands of children, and serious harm and even death for other children. These are facts that the government must accept. In addition, the federal government must work with first nations to fund further investigation into the deaths and disappearances of children at residential schools.
The Harper Conservatives denied the TRC the $1.5 million it requested to get an accurate representation of how many unmarked graves there are. The TRC heard from countless witnesses of their existence, but no national effort was made to identify them. This must be addressed.
As stated by Murray Sinclair, retired senator and chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission:
We know there are lots of sites similar to Kamloops that are going to come to light in the future. We need to begin to prepare ourselves for that. Those that are survivors and intergenerational survivors need to understand that this information is important for all of Canada to understand the magnitude of the truth of this experience.
I am also calling for full funding of the healing resources that survivors need. The federal government must accelerate its progress to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and announce a timeline and an independent, publicly accountable mechanism for the fulfillment of the calls to action. We cannot continue to say that we support reconciliation without doing real, meaningful work.
To close, the NDP wants to see the TRC recommendation realized. We want to see this bill come to reality, but we also want to see the new citizenship guidebook, which has been in the making for five years, and we have no information of when it will be available. We want the guidebook to also incorporate that history, and clearly outline that genocide has been committed against indigenous peoples and continues to be. Every newcomer needs to know this history and take it to heart. As indicated, this is not an aboriginal issue: It is an issue for all of Canada. It is a Canadian issue and we need to own up to it. We need to—
Collapse
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-06-01 19:25 [p.7787]
Expand
Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague for Winnipeg Centre.
The discovery last week of 215 children buried on the grounds of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School is a sad reminder of Canada's genocidal actions against indigenous peoples. First nations, survivors, elders, leaders, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and others are calling for action to confront this history and help bring about closure. Families and communities are discussing this important issue, and now the House is doing so as well.
I have asked the Prime Minister repeatedly if he will stop fighting indigenous children and residential school survivors in court. He refuses to say he will. He refuses to say that he will stop making indigenous families and residential school survivors suffer. That is not reconciliation. True reconciliation means taking real action to end the injustice against indigenous peoples.
We reeled in horror at the discovery of 215 indigenous children found buried at that former residential school. Canadians across the country were horrified by what had happened to these children. As a nation, we saw people around the country hold memorials to reflect on what this horror means.
What it means very clearly is that these residential schools were not schools. They were institutions designed to eradicate and eliminate indigenous people. They were institutions designed to perpetrate a genocide.
I spoke with Chief Rosanne Casimir, an indigenous leader representing the community at the heart of this, and she told me about the pain her community feels right now. This is not a surprise. There are many examples of indigenous children being killed and dying at residential schools, but the uncovering of this site opened up wounds and requires healing.
Chief Rosanne Casimir reminded me of the importance of the community, the need for the community to heal and the importance of the federal government supporting that healing.
I want to point out very clearly that, while we are reeling from this loss and this horrible discovery, we have to also acknowledge that injustice continues to happen. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government are, at this very moment, fighting indigenous kids in court despite multiple Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions. Despite multiple orders from the Human Rights Tribunal, the government is fighting these kids in court. The Liberal government is fighting survivors of residential schools in court right now.
The Liberal government is failing so badly in putting in place the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry's calls for justice that indigenous women's groups are saying they are going to have to come up with their own plan to implement them.
Today in this take-note debate, I want us to move beyond the nice words and symbolic gestures the Liberal government makes again and again. We need concrete action.
What does that look like? It stops the legal battles. It stops fighting indigenous kids in court. It stops fighting Human Rights Tribunal decisions. It stops fighting survivors of residential schools in court.
We are calling on the federal government to work with indigenous nations to put in place funding for further investigations, and we are calling on an acceleration of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. We want real action. That is what justice demands.
It is not good enough to say that we are sharing condolences. We demand action to put right injustice and to fight for a future that is based on human rights, respect for treaty rights, respect for justice and respect for the inherent dignity of indigenous people.
Collapse
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
View Leah Gazan Profile
2021-06-01 19:30 [p.7788]
Expand
Madam Chair, survivors, families and communities were shaken once again by the discovery of 215 children in unmarked graves in Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc at the Kamloops Indian Residential School: the largest school in the Indian Affairs residential school system.
I want to extend my sympathies to the community, survivors and families. I lift you up today and every day.
Unfortunately, this tragedy is not the first time we have discovered the remains of little children around these schools. Acts of genocide were more the norm and not the exception. According to the TRC, at least 40% to 60% of children who attended these schools died. Sometimes, according to Mary-Ellen Kelm, it was as a result of having been purposely exposed to infections such as TB, spreading the disease through the school population. Former TRC commissioner Murray Sinclair has said that he believes the death count could be much higher due to the schools' poor burial records.
These are the sacred lives of children exposed to acts of genocide, often to never return home. Families were left without answers about where their loved ones were, like at Brandon Residential School. The bodies of more than 50 children were discovered on the institution's grounds in 2019. It is now being used as a private campground, and survivors and impacted family members, including Jennifer Rattray, are working to find closure, as she stated in a CBC interview today. She said:
The families and communities whose children were lost while attending these schools have questions that deserve answers. The children buried at these sites must have their identities restored and their stories told. They will never be forgotten.
Can members imagine having to ask permission to honour the remains of children who perished as a result of genocide?
The fact is that genocide against indigenous people is so normalized that it actually needs to be discussed. Even in death, our children are disrespected and disregarded. Families, survivors and communities need closure, and the spirits of our lost children need to be nurtured. They need to be put to rest. They need peace.
We need to act now. At the very least, we need to heed the 94 calls to action and support them with adequate funding, including calls to action 71 to 76. We need to fund nations so they can complete their own radar ground searches at all Indian residential school sites. This is supported by the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, Long Plain First Nation, Pimicikamak Cree Nation, AFN and so many others.
We need to block off all residential school sites immediately as active crime scenes so that indigenous nations, survivors and families can decide how they want to proceed in their searches for their loved ones. These should be treated like crime scenes, according to Chief Dennis Meeches from Long Plain First Nation.
We must stop fighting residential school survivors, including those from St. Anne's, and provide emergency and ongoing support for survivors, families and communities who continue to deal with this trauma as a result of the residential school system.
We need to recognize what happened as a genocide, not as a cultural genocide. It meets the criteria of genocide under the UN Genocide Convention.
We need this government and all members of Parliament to support us in bringing our children home. Please allow us to have that justice, to get that closure and bring our children home.
Collapse
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-04-30 13:34 [p.6485]
Expand
moved:
That, given that the pandemic and the pressure it is putting on public finances has created the urgent need to close the loopholes being taken advantage of by some taxpayers through the use of tax havens, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
(a) amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;
(b) review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;
(c) require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;
(d) review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;
(e) work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion; and
(f) use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how happy I am to speak to this motion today. I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for supporting me in this presentation.
As we face a major public finance crisis, we must look at how we could eventually balance our public finances. Two options are always available to governments: increasing taxes or reducing services. This means taking more money out of taxpayers’ pockets or imposing austerity measures. However, while we are thinking of ways to make the people take their medicine, some people are avoiding doing their duty and not contributing according to their means.
In his speech to Congress this week, President Biden said that, according to one study, 55 of the largest businesses in the United States did not pay a penny in federal income tax last year, although they made some $40 billion in profits during the same period. How can that be?
There are two mechanisms that allow companies to shelter income from taxes. First, there are tax loopholes, which are measures provided for by law. When people have enough money, they can hire an army of accountants and tax experts to find the best ways of avoiding paying their fair share. It does not matter whether we are talking about an individual or a business. President Biden referred to the wealthiest people in the U.S., whose tax rate is lower than that of the middle class. That is unacceptable, despicable and scandalous. We need to look at tax loopholes.
There are also tax havens. What is a tax haven? It is a territory where income tax is almost non-existent. Businesses create satellite companies, and sometimes fictitious subsidiaries, in these territories to shelter their profits from the taxman. These subsidiaries exist only to enable companies to shelter their assets from taxes. They do not engage in any business activities or operations. They are empty shells that enable companies to avoid paying their fair share to society.
However transparent or opaque tax havens may be, everyone knows about them and about their impact on public finances. These schemes set up by accountants and other financiers or tax experts can go as far as tax evasion, simply hiding their clients’ income and wealth from the tax authorities. All these mechanisms are ways that some people use to avoid paying their fair share to the government, while other taxpayers continue to pay.
What makes this even more troubling is that, in many cases, these tax havens allow for tax avoidance or tax evasion and often become essential links in international criminal activity, making it possible for organized crime to launder money. Governments are powerless in the face of these tax havens, which create, or are complicit in, tax inequity among countries.
With advances in technology it is very easy to instantly transfer information and money, which makes it much more difficult to track operations.
In 2016, economist and legal expert James S. Henry calculated that a mind-boggling total of more than $36 trillion U.S. was in tax havens. We are talking about 36 trillion American dollars.
In 2017, no less than 40% of international financial transactions allegedly passed through tax havens, in one way or another, according to economist Gabriel Zucman.
The International Monetary Fund estimates that the use of tax havens cost governments a staggering $800 billion. This represents approximately $600 billion a year in corporate taxes and $200 billion a year in personal income taxes.
Tax havens are therefore a political issue that the House must absolutely address. Eliminating them is in the interest of our citizens. We must no longer give a free ride to profiteers, who have a vested interest in keeping these tax havens in place.
Canadian companies are far from being above reproach, since one-third of all Canadian foreign investments are in tax havens. According to Statistics Canada, Canadian businesses invested $381 billion in the 12 main tax havens in 2019.
That same year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that these were not really investments, but actually accounting operations aimed at avoiding paying tax. The Canada Revenue Agency estimated that Canadian businesses' investments in tax havens deprive the government of $11.4 billion in tax annually, and that large companies are responsible for 75% of this amount. That is four times more than the CRA estimated it loses to investments in tax havens by individuals in a report published a year earlier. I think that we need to recognize that there is a certain laxity, and that we need to react.
In 2018, the Minister of National Revenue boasted in the House that the Canada Revenue Agency was going to recover $15 billion as a result of its international tax investigations. The CRA's annual report indicates a far more modest result. It mentions a paltry $25 million, 600 times less than the minister estimated.
We recently learned that, five years after the Panama papers leak, the Canada Revenue Agency had yet to lay charges and had only claimed $21 million in unpaid taxes for the entire country.
Revenu Québec, however, recovered $21 million in addition to the $12 million it claimed and that remains unpaid, for a total of $33 million, for Quebec alone. It did so without the benefit of the international tax information the Canada Revenue Agency has access to.
It therefore appears that the Canada Revenue Agency and the federal government are among the most lax when it comes to prosecuting tax fraud. Moreover, the federal government is complicit in the increased use of tax havens because it literally legalized their use.
In 1994, Jean Chrétien's Liberal government allowed companies to repatriate the income earned in Barbados without paying a penny in tax. Paul Martin, who was finance minister at the time, took advantage of the regulatory change to register his company Canada Steamship Lines there.
Stephen Harper's Conservative government went even further, making a regulatory change that legalized 18 new tax havens. Five more have been added since then, 3 under the current Liberal government's previous mandate, which makes it 23 tax havens legalized through regulation.
The House of Commons never had a word to say about it. This major change was made by simple regulatory amendment, which the government tried to hide in a mishmash of documents.
As I said earlier, all of these changes were made by way of regulation. The House of Commons was never asked to consider the matter. Canada therefore plays a major role in international tax havens, but we wonder whether it is doing so for the right reasons.
There is a close connection between the federal government and certain West Indian tax havens, since Canada speaks not only on its own behalf, but on behalf of some of these tax havens. I am talking about countries like Barbados, Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Saint Lucia, for which Canada speaks at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund. That is unbelievable.
It appears, then, that tax havens have decided that Canada should defend their interests before international financial institutions, but who is defending the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians?
In addition to this highly questionable situation, we see that the digital multinationals have VIP passes that allow them to do business in Canada without paying a cent in taxes. The budget contained some indications that this will change, but why did the government wait so long, when businesses in Quebec and Canada pay their taxes?
The federal government, with its careless and cavalier attitude, has been complicit in allowing this loss of revenue for our public purse. Quebec has no fiscal leeway because it needs to know an income exists to be able to tax it. However, it is the federal government that signs the tax agreements and information-sharing agreements so it is the only one authorized to request tax information, pursuant to the Income Tax Act.
Quebec, in particular, is losing out on revenue because of Ottawa's complacency, and, as I was saying, Quebec does not have much leeway. All of this lost revenue could be put towards much-needed investments in health care, education and infrastructure.
It is also unfortunate that the single tax return bill was not passed, because it would have given Revenu Québec direct access to foreign tax information. That would have been a good thing, because Revenu Québec has proven much more effective than the Canada Revenue Agency in recovering money hidden in tax havens. If Revenu Québec was able to do better than the CRA using only the information it obtained from media leaks, imagine what it could do if it had direct access to foreign tax information.
Motion No. 69 proposes several solutions. It proposes to:
(a) amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;
We would also need to repeal subsection 5907(1) of the Income Tax Regulations, which I talked about earlier. The motion also proposes to:
(b) review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;
We are talking about “shell companies” that do not engage in any real business activity but should be paying taxes in Canada. The motion also proposes to:
(c) require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;
In 2019, Canada's big six banks generated record profits of $46 billion, 50% more than five years before. In 2020, despite the pandemic, they made $41 billion. Their profits are going up, but they are paying less tax. We can only assume this is because they are investing in tax havens.
(d) review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;
(e) work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion; and
(f) use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 353--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s response to the opioid crisis: has the government joined legal action against (i) Purdue Pharma, (ii) McKinsey, (iii) any other pharmaceutical companies or consultants who acted for pharmaceutical companies in relation to how their activities may have contributed to the opioid crisis, and if so, what is the status of any such action?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we continue to support community-based projects that aim to address the needs of those who use substances. We have made it easier to access medications like Suboxone and methadone, while also rapidly establishing overdose prevention sites. Our government has also dedicated $66 million to the substance use and addictions program through the fall economic statement.
The Government of Canada has not joined legal action against Purdue Pharma, McKinsey, or any other pharmaceutical companies or consultants who acted for pharmaceutical companies, in relation to how their activities may have contributed to the opioid crisis, as of January 21, 2021.

Question No. 354--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s decision to appoint Dominic Barton to various positions since November 4, 2015: (a) did Dominic Barton disclose the work that McKinsey had done for Purdue Pharma before receiving government appointments; (b) was the government aware of the work that McKinsey had done for Purdue Pharma prior to appointing Dominic Barton; (c) did Dominic Barton recuse himself or was he asked to recuse himself from any aspect of his work for McKinsey in light of his concurrent work for the federal government, and if so, on what subject matters; and (d) on what date did the government become aware that McKinsey had done work for Purdue Pharma during the time when Dominic Barton was its managing director?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office, PCO, is as follows.
The Conflict of Interest Act, the act, applies to all Governor in Council, GIC, appointees, including Canada’s heads of mission. The act sets out the steps to be taken to avoid real and potential conflicts between the private interests and public responsibilities of GIC appointees.
As full-time appointees, heads of mission not appointed or employed under the Public Service Employment Act fall under the “reporting public office holder” category for the purposes of the act. Reporting public office holders are subject not only to the act's general conflict of interest and post-employment rules, but also to its reporting and public disclosure provisions, and its restrictions on the types of assets they may hold and the outside activities in which they may engage.
Compliance with the act is a condition of appointment to a GIC position. Candidates are responsible for ensuring that they are not in a conflict of interest, and for seeking advice and guidance at an early stage from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of their appointment, individuals are required to submit a confidential report to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner describing their assets, liabilities, income and certain activities as prescribed by the act. Appointees are required to disclose certain matters throughout their term of office, and must review the information in their confidential report on an annual basis and comply with any new measures that may be necessary to satisfy their obligations under the act.
Collapse
View John Brassard Profile
CPC (ON)
View John Brassard Profile
2020-11-25 15:04 [p.2413]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, on August 24, 2015, in Belleville, Ontario, someone made this promise that “no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation that they have earned”. Yet, since 2016, the person who said that has spent $43.5 million fighting veterans and their families in court, forcing them to fight for the support and compensation that they have earned.
Will whoever made that promise and broke it please stand up and explain to veterans and their families why he broke that promise?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-11-25 15:05 [p.2413]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, service delivery and support to veterans and their families has been our priority from the very beginning. Since 2016, we have invested nearly $10.5 billion in new money for our veterans and their families. This funding was invested in new centres of excellence on chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder, on increased financial compensation and more.
That stands in stark contrast to the Conservative approach, including from the Leader of the Opposition, which was to close offices, fire staff and gut Veterans Affairs while nickel-and-diming veterans and using them for photo ops. Our veterans deserve better. That is what we are delivering on.
Collapse
View John Brassard Profile
CPC (ON)
View John Brassard Profile
2020-11-25 15:05 [p.2413]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, who uses them for photo ops?
The Liberals keep fighting veterans and their families in court and it continues. There are 1,400 veterans who have filed a class action lawsuit. Veterans Charles Scott and John Dowe, among many others, have their government fighting them in court for the support that they have earned. The benefit system for veterans is in complete chaos and the responsibility for that lies at the Prime Minister's feet.
Like so many other promises that he made in 2015 and has since broken, will the Prime Minister explain to veterans and their families why he continues forcing them to fight in court for the support and compensation that they have earned?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-11-25 15:06 [p.2413]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, one of the very first promises we made to veterans when we were looking to take office in 2015 was that we would reopen the nine Veterans Affairs offices heartlessly shuttered by the Conservatives and that is exactly what we did. On top of that, we invested over $10 billion in new money for veterans and their families to help them and their families through difficult times. That is what we are there for. We are continuing to pick up the pieces broken by years of Conservative neglect. We will continue to deliver for our veterans.
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-11-23 16:04
Expand

Question No. 124--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the Optional Survivor Benefit (OSB) for common-law partners and the statement on the government’s website that “The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) was amended so that a member living in a common-law relationship can provide a survivor pension if the relationship begins after age 60. However, the regulations must be amended to specify the details. Consequently, the OSB is not yet available for common-law relationships.”: (a) when will the regulations be amended to make the OSB available to those in common-law relationships that begin after age 60; (b) why have the regulations not yet been amended; (c) what are the government’s projections regarding how many such individuals will be eligible for the OSB; and (d) of the individuals in (c), what percentage does the government project will opt in to the OSB?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces offer competitive salaries and world-class benefit packages that start on the first day of a member’s service, up until after they retire. To ensure members are fairly compensated for their service to Canada, National Defence continues to work on issues, such as the optional survivor benefit for common-law relationships, to better reflect the reality of today’s veterans.
With regard to part (a) of the question, optional survivor benefit regulations are currently in the process of being amended. The amendments are complex and require coordination among multiple departments to ensure they are done properly. This process is being done collaboratively with Treasury Board and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
With regard to part (b), National Defence is currently working collaboratively with Treasury Board and the RCMP to determine a common policy approach for amending regulations. This will ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces, public service and RCMP pension plans are cohesive and contain similar optional survivor benefit provisions.
With regard to parts (c) and (d), National Defence does not maintain this information and it is not available to provide a projection at this time.

Question No. 125--
Ms. Nelly Shin:
With regard to expenditures related to legal proceedings involving veterans and veterans' groups, since January 1, 2018: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures incurred to date, broken down by case; and (b) what are the expenditures in (a), broken down by type and line item?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to expenditures incurred in relation to legal proceedings involving veterans and veterans' groups, since January 1, 2018, to the extent that the information requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege or settlement privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.
The total legal costs, including actual and notional costs, associated with legal proceedings involving veterans and veterans' groups since January 1, 2018, amount to approximatively $5,475,000. These costs cover all types of legal proceedings, including individual and class actions brought by veterans, judicial review applications of decisions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and appeals. The Crown is usually not initiating these proceedings but rather acts as a defendant or respondent. The total legal costs are with respect to litigation and litigation support services, which were provided in these cases by the Department of Justice. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and, therefore, no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs are composed of file-related legal disbursements paid by the department and then cost-recovered from the client departments or agencies, as well as the costs of legal agents who may be retained by the Minister of Justice to provide litigation services in certain cases. The amount mentioned in this response is based on information currently contained in the Department of Justice systems, as of October 6, 2020.

Question No. 128--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s reaction to the genocide and human rights abuses of Uighurs in Xinjiang Province, China, and the decision as to whether to place Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible: (a) will the government be placing sanctions under the Magnitsky Act on the Chinese government officials responsible for the genocide; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, which Chinese government officials will be subject to the sanctions, and what criteria will the government use to determine which officials will be subject to the sanctions; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, then what is the rationale for not placing sanctions on those responsible for this genocide?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. The promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canadian foreign policy and is a priority in the Government of Canada’s engagement with China. The nature and scale of the abuses by Chinese authorities of Uighurs and other ethnic and religious minorities, under the pretext of countering extremism, are deeply disturbing. The Government of Canada is alarmed by the mass arbitrary detentions, repressive surveillance, allegations of torture, mistreatment, forced labour, forced sterilization of women and mass arbitrary separation of children from their parents. These actions by the Chinese government are contrary to its own constitution, in violation of international human rights obligations and inconsistent with the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.
Canada takes allegations of genocide very seriously. We will continue to work in close collaboration with our allies to push for these to be investigated through an international independent body and for impartial experts to access the region so that they can see the situation first-hand and report back.
Canada has continuously relayed its concerns about China’s actions directly to Chinese officials. Canada has also taken action to speak out at the United Nations in co-operation with partners. For example, in June 2020, during the 44th session of the HRC, Canada and 27 other countries signed a joint statement voicing concerns on the human rights situations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Recently, at the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, on October 6, 2020, Canada co-signed, along with 38 other countries, a joint statement on the human rights situation in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. As part of joint communications, Canada and other countries have repeatedly called on China to allow unfettered access to Xinjiang to UN human rights experts and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Canada is judicious in its approach regarding when to deploy sanctions and/or draw on other courses of action in our diplomatic tool kit based on foreign policy priorities. The regulations enacted under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act allow the Government of Canada to target individuals who are, in the opinion of the government, responsible for, or complicit in, gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or acts of significant corruption. Canada takes the matter of listing individuals under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act very seriously. A rigorous due diligence process has been established to consider and evaluate possible cases of human rights violations or corruption anywhere in the world against the criteria set out in the act, within the context of other ongoing efforts to promote human rights and combat corruption. Our government believes that sanctions have the maximum impact when they are being imposed in collaboration with other countries.
Please also note that the trade commissioner service has updated its guidance for businesses on the risks of doing business in China, including risks related to human rights abuses. Ensuring companies adhere to responsible business practices is essential to manage social, reputational, legal and economic risks. The Government of Canada expects Canadian companies active abroad, in any market or country, to respect human rights, operate lawfully and conduct their activities in a responsible manner consistent with international standards such as the UN “Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights” and the OECD “Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises”. Among other things, the Government of Canada expects Canadian companies to adopt global best practices with respect to supply chain due diligence in order to eliminate the direct or indirect risk of involvement in any forced labour or other human rights abuses.
Please be assured that the promotion and protection of human rights are core priorities of Canada’s foreign policy. The Government of Canada will continue to raise its concerns regarding the human rights situation in Xinjiang and all of China, and will continue to call on China to live up to its international obligations.

Question No. 131--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to isolation housing or quarantine facilities provided to foreign visitors to Canada during the pandemic: (a) how many foreign visitors have required the government to provide isolation housing or quarantine facilities upon arrival to Canada since March 2020; (b) what is the monthly breakdown of the amount spent on housing or quarantine facilities to foreign visitors; and (c) are foreign visitors required to reimburse Canadian taxpayers for the costs related to isolation housing or quarantine facilities, and, if so, (i) how many visitors have paid reimbursements, (ii) what is the total dollar amount collected by the government for such reimbursements?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), federal quarantine facilities are for any travellers arriving in Canada who do not have suitable options to self-isolate or quarantine through their own means. To date, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, has housed approximately 32 foreign nationals in federally designated quarantine sites. This excludes repatriation of cruise ship passengers in March 2020. This accounts for less than 3% of travellers who have used these facilities.
With regard to (b), due to current contracting activities, including potential competitive processes, the exact breakdown of costs cannot be publicly disclosed at this time.
With regard to (c), no, foreign visitors are not required to reimburse the Government of Canada for their stay in federally designated sites. With regard to c)(i), PHAC has received quarantine cost reimbursements, approximately $40,000, from a small number of foreign national crew members of four foreign vessels, because there was a failure by shipping agents to abide by public health measures upon entering Canada. With regard to c)(ii), to date, PHAC has invoiced approximately $40,000 to shipping agents for the quarantine of their crew members in federally designated sites.

Question No. 133--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the Veterans Affairs Canada area offices, which have all been closed to veterans since March 2020: (a) which offices have reopened to clients and what was the reopening date of each office; and (b) of the offices that are still closed, what is the projected reopening date when they will be open to clients, broken down by location?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Veterans Affairs Canada continues to serve veterans and their families by phone and online. In addition to regular services, Veterans Affairs Canada has reached out to 18,000 vulnerable clients since the beginning of the pandemic.
With regard to (b), the health, safety and well-being of veterans and their families, as well as Veterans Affairs Canada employees, is the priority of Veterans Affairs Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Essentially, all Veterans Affairs Canada employees are equipped to work remotely, enabling Veterans Affairs Canada to continue to provide services to veterans and their families in the midst of this global pandemic.
Veterans Affairs Canada will continue to take guidance from public health officials and work with its partners across government to support easing restrictions in a gradual, phased and controlled manner that prioritizes the health and safety of employees and those accessing services at departmental buildings. While access to Veterans Affairs Canada offices is suspended, veterans and their families are still accessing Veterans Affairs Canada programs and services. Veterans Affairs Canada staff are available, working remotely and prioritizing getting benefits to veterans in greatest need.

Question No. 134--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to sanitizer product purchases since March 13, 2020: (a) how many litres in total have been purchased; (b) of the amount in (a), (i) how many litres have been distributed through the government distribution system, (ii) how many litres of sanitizer have been purchased from off-shore suppliers, (iii) how many litres of sanitizer have been purchased from domestic suppliers; (c) of the amount in (a), how many litres have been purchased from suppliers that have been recalled by Health Canada; (d) have any sanitizers on the recall lists been distributed to Canadian health care providers; and (e) how is the government tracking sanitizer products and other personal protective equipment that has been distributed but later recalled?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), 20,649,819 litres have been purchased.
With regard to (b)(i), 20,649,819 litres have been distributed through the government distribution system.
With regard to (b)(ii), 10,243,813 litres of sanitizer have been purchased from offshore suppliers.
With regard to (b)(iii), 10,406,006 litres of sanitizer have been purchased from domestic suppliers.
With regard to (c) of the amount in (a), none of the sanitizer purchased by PSPC has been recalled.
With regard to (d), none of the sanitizer purchased by PSPC has been recalled.
With regard to (e), none of the sanitizer or personal protective equipment purchased by PSPC has been recalled.
Collapse
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 102--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the government's announcement in the Speech from the Throne to create one million jobs through environmentally focused measures: (a) what sectors will these jobs be in, and how many jobs are expected to be created in each sector; (b) what is the breakdown of where these jobs are expected to be created by province or territory and municipal region; (c) what is the breakdown of the educational attainment required for these jobs; (d) what is the projected cost to create these jobs; (e) is it the government's intent to employ unemployed retail and hospitality workers to build green infrastructure; (f) what is the projected cost to retrain a million workers for these jobs; (g) what is the demographic balance of people who currently work in the green energy sector; (h) what is the demographic balance of people currently most unemployed due to the crisis; (i) will there be private sector investment to create these jobs or will it be solely government funding; (j) how long does the government anticipate it will take to train unemployed retail, hospitality, and entertainment workers to build green infrastructure; and (k) what is the projected cost of this training?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne outlined the government’s intent to launch a plan to create over one million jobs to help restore employment to previous levels. The plan will use a range of tools, including direct investment in the social sector and infrastructure, immediate training to quickly skill up workers and incentives for employers to hire and retain workers.
This commitment is part of the government’s four-pillar foundation to help build a stronger and more resilient Canada, including, first, fight the pandemic and save lives; second, support people and businesses through this crisis; third, build back better by strengthening the middle class, supporting job creation and long-term competitiveness with clean growth; and fourth, stand up for who we are as Canadians by achieving progress on gender equality, walking the road of reconciliation and fighting discrimination of every kind.
This plan also builds on the Government of Canada’s immediate and decisive action to support Canadians and businesses facing hardship as a result of the pandemic. Programs such as the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, have provided millions of Canadians with the financial support they needed to get by. Other measures such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy, or CEWS, have provided support to Canadian businesses, helping them to avoid layoffs, rehire employees and create new jobs. Close to nine million Canadians were helped by the CERB and over 3.5 million jobs were supported by the wage subsidy.
This plan is already working. The Canadian economy had lost three million jobs at the peak of the COVID-19 economic impact. By September, the Canadian economy had recovered about 2.3 million jobs.
However, clearly more needs to be done. This is why, through the Speech from the Throne, the government laid out a solid economic recovery plan that will restore employment to previous levels and ensure Canadians return to work and thrive economically.

Question No. 103--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the government's plan to declare single-use plastics as a harmful substance: (a) what is the timeline for implementing such a declaration; (b) has there been any analysis of the trade implications of such a declaration, and, if so, who conducted the analysis, and what were the findings; (c) has there been a job impact analysis prepared, and, if so, who conducted the analysis, and what were the findings; (d) if this plan is implemented, what are the projected job impacts in Canada's petrochemical industry; (e) were there consultations undertaken with the provinces on such a declaration, and, if so, what are the details; (f) what is the policy justification to use environmental protection legislation to ban a consumer good, which is regulated provincially; and (g) has a legal analysis been conducted to ensure the legality of such a declaration, and, if so, who conducted the analysis and what were the findings?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding part (a) of the question, as required under section 332 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, CEPA, a draft order in council proposing to add “plastic manufactured items” to schedule 1 of CEPA was published in the Canada Gazette, part I, on October 9, 2020, for a 60-day public comment period. After the public comment period is complete, Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada will review comments received and determine whether adjustments are needed to the draft order. A final order in council adding “plastic manufactured items” to schedule 1 will be published in Canada Gazette, part II, in 2021.
With regard to part (b) of the question, the “Cabinet Directive on Regulation” requires departments and agencies to ensure Canada’s international commitments are met when carrying out their regulatory activities, including in the area of international trade. In addition, the directive requires departments and agencies to analyze the potential positive and negative impacts of a proposed regulation and its feasible alternative options on Canadians, businesses, governments and the environment, and identify how impacts are distributed across the various parties.
A cost-benefit analysis was conducted for the draft order in council that proposes to add “plastic manufactured items” to schedule 1 of CEPA, and found that the addition of “plastic manufactured items” to schedule 1 would not, on its own, impose any regulatory requirements on businesses or other entities, and would therefore not result in any incremental compliance costs for stakeholders. The small business lens analysis concluded that the proposed order would have no associated impact on small business, as it does not impose any administrative or compliance costs on businesses. This can be found in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement” accompanying the draft order in council in Canada Gazette, part I.
With regard to part (c) of the question, the “Cabinet Directive on Regulation” requires departments and agencies to examine the potential impacts on employment of a proposed regulation and its feasible alternative options on Canadians, businesses, governments and the environment, and identify how impacts are distributed across the various parties. A cost-benefit analysis was conducted for the draft order in council that proposes to add “plastic manufactured items” to schedule 1 of CEPA and found that the addition of “plastic manufactured items” to schedule 1 would not, on its own, impose any regulatory requirements on businesses or other entities, and would therefore not result in any incremental compliance costs for stakeholders. The small business lens analysis concluded that the proposed order would have no associated impact on small business, as it does not impose any administrative or compliance costs on businesses. This can be found in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement” accompanying the draft order in council in Canada Gazette, part I.
Regarding part (d) of the question, any risk management measures developed using the enabling authorities provided by adding “plastic manufactured items” to schedule 1 of CEPA, including regulations prohibiting or restricting the use of certain single-use plastic items, will undergo all of the analysis required by the “Cabinet Directive on Regulations”, including analysis of benefits and costs. As the government is still consulting partners and stakeholders and is still developing an approach for prohibiting or restricting certain single-use plastic items, this level of analysis is not yet available. However, this detailed analysis will accompany any draft regulations published in Canada Gazette, part I.
Regarding part (e) of the question, the Government of Canada has been working closely with provinces and territories through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to develop and implement the strategy on zero plastic waste, which seeks to move Canada toward a circular economy for plastics, positioning the country as a leader in forward-looking and innovative waste prevention and management solutions.
Provinces and territories have been provided regular updates on the Government of Canada’s comprehensive agenda for achieving zero plastic waste through the CCME, which often serves a forum for exchanging information on federal, provincial and territorial initiatives. For example, at the latest CCME meeting in July 2020, federal, provincial and territorial ministers devoted a major portion of their meeting to sharing perspectives and strategies for a sustainable post-pandemic recovery. Provinces and territories were also provided with early copies of the discussion paper that was released on October 7 for their review, and federal officials presented on the integrated management approach to the CCME’s waste reduction and recovery committee in September 2020.
With regard to part (f) of the question, the Government of Canada’s approach is based on the best available science and evidence. The scientific basis is outlined in the “Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution”, developed jointly by Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada. The science assessment confirms that, among other things, plastic items greater than five millimetres in diameter have been shown to cause harm to living organisms and their habitat. Wildlife ingest or become entangled in these plastics, which result in direct harm and, in many cases, mortality. The science assessment confirms that action is needed to reduce plastics that end up in the environment.
In addition, data from shoreline cleanups and municipal litter audits show that single-use plastics are prevalent in the environment and pose a threat to wildlife. With this basis of science and evidence, the Government of Canada has proposed using enabling authorities under CEPA to regulate certain single-use plastics. CEPA is an important part of Canada's federal environmental legislation aimed at preventing pollution and protecting the environment and human health. CEPA provides a range of tools that allows the government to target sources of plastic pollution and change behaviour at key stages in the life cycle of plastic products, such as design, manufacture, use, disposal and recovery, in order to reduce pollution and create the conditions for achieving a circular plastics economy.
Regarding part (g) of the question, the recommendation to add a substance to schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, CEPA, is on the basis of the provisions outlined in CEPA. In particular, subsection 90(1) of CEPA authorizes the Governor in Council to add a substance to schedule 1 if it is satisfied, on the recommendation of the ministers of health and environment, that the substance meets any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the act, i.e., if the substance poses a risk to the environment, human health or both. The “Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution” provided the ministers with the evidence to recommend adding “plastic manufactured items” to schedule 1 of CEPA, an action that would help address the potential ecological risks associated with plastic manufactured items becoming plastic pollution.

Question No. 104--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the decision by the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor) to provide a $800,000 loan to skritswap Inc.: (a) how many of the seven positions the government’s website claims will be created from the loan will be located (i) in Northern Ontario, broken down by location, (ii) in Canada, (iii) in the United States; (b) did the government verify that the company was actually primarily based out of Sault Ste. Marie as opposed to the company’s locations in Waterloo, Ontario, or San Mateo, California; (c) if the government did verify that the company had a permanent head office in Northern Ontario by visiting the location, which government official visited the location; (d) did FedNor receive a commitment from the company that any jobs created from the loan would be created in Northern Ontario, and, if so, what are the details of the commitment; and (e) what is the breakdown of the anticipated economic benefit or jobs being created by municipality?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to growing the economy in northern Ontario and creating good local jobs. The Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, or FedNor, has always been a key partner for entrepreneurs in northern Ontario and an integral part of the economic development of the region.
In this specific case, the funding was given to support a woman entrepreneur in growing her business in northern Ontario. FedNor is aware of this situation, is in contact with the business and will continue to monitor the situation closely. The business is fully aware that if it fails to meet the parameters set by the contribution agreement, it will need to immediately pay back the funds it received.
FedNor will continue to work closely and strategically with businesses and community partners to build a stronger northern Ontario.

Question No. 108--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to changes or modifications made to the operations and alert systems of the Global Public Health Intelligence Network, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the specific details of each change or modification, including (i) the description of change or modification, (ii) the date of the decision, (iii) the date the change came into effect, (iv) who recommended the change or modification, (v) the date the Office of the Minister of Health was notified; (vi) the date the Privy Council Office or the Prime Minister's Office was notified; (vii) the date on which the change was made public, if applicable; (b) for each change in (a), were other countries informed of the change and what are the details of each such instance, including (i) the date, (ii) notified countries, (iii) the summary of change; and (c) for each change in (a), was the World Health Organization notified, and, if so, on what date?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), from the program’s inception until late 2018, the Global Public Health Intelligence Network, GPHIN, alerts were identified and issued by the program’s analysts. The purpose of an alert is to direct international and Canadian subscribers to a particular media article without any summary or additional analysis. In the fall of 2018, the health security infrastructure branch, HSIB, began a review of program information products, including GPHIN alerts and their associated approval processes.
Following internal discussions, a decision was made to raise the approval level to HSIB’s vice-president in order to maintain awareness of the Public Health Agency of Canada’s, PHAC’s, senior officials concerning alerts being published by the system.
Approval of the GPHIN daily reports, which provides a comprehensive summary of multiple media articles, remained at the analyst level and so had no change. In September 2020, approval for alerts was set at the director level.
All other GPHIN information products, such as the GPHIN daily report, previously called the situational awareness section daily report, continue to be distributed directly from GPHIN to subscribers, including senior management at PHAC and other government departments.
At no time has GPHIN been directed to cease or slow its information gathering. Information-sharing activities continue to take place in a timely manner. GPHIN’s primary role as a global event-based surveillance system has remained unchanged, and its capacity has been enhanced over a number of years via collaborations with partners such as the National Research Council.
With regard to part (a) (v), (vi), (vii), and parts (b) and (c), the above changes were made internally to PHAC. There is no documentation indicating that the change in the approval process for GPHIN alerts was communicated to the organizations listed above.

Question No. 111--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine: (a) what is the expected timeline for the distribution of a vaccine; (b) once the vaccine is approved by Health Canada, which population groups will be designated priority groups to receive the vaccine first; (c) what is the current time estimate to vaccinate all of the groups in (b), broken down by priority groups; (d) what is the current time estimate to give access to the general population once a vaccine is approved; (e) what is the current time estimate to vaccinate all Canadians who desire or require a vaccine; (f) what percentage of doses will be allocated to each of the initial priority groups; (g) what percentage of doses will be allocated to the general population; and (h) what criteria did the government use to determine which groups would receive priority access?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, anticipates limited vaccine to be available for distribution in Canada in the first part of 2021. Any vaccine that is distributed in Canada must have regulatory approval or an interim order. The initial supply is expected to be constrained, improving over time as manufacturing is scaled up and the availability of products that have completed clinical trials are approved by Health Canada.
With regard to part (b), guidance on the use of a pandemic vaccine, including recommendations on key populations for early vaccination when initial vaccine supply is limited, has been provided by Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, an external expert advisory body that provides advice to PHAC on the optimal use of vaccines in Canada. NACI is identified in the federal, provincial and territorial Canadian pandemic plan as the authoritative body for advice on vaccine prioritization and vaccine public health program design.
On November 3, 2020, NACI released preliminary guidance on key populations for early COVID-19 immunization, with the goal of providing a plan for the efficient, effective and equitable allocation of a COVID-19 vaccine once it is authorized for use in Canada when limited initial vaccine supply will necessitate the prioritization of immunization in some populations earlier than others. This document can be found online at www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci/guidance-key-populations-early-covid-19-immunization.html
Once a vaccine candidate has completed advanced clinical trials, NACI will refine and recalibrate its preliminary guidance on target groups, based on additional safety and efficacy data from advanced clinical trials; availability of supply; one- or multi-dose schedules; whether/how to vaccinate children and pregnant women; and policy frameworks regarding ethics, equity and economics.
With regard to part (c), at this time, a number of vaccines for COVID-19 are undergoing clinical testing in Canada and internationally and PHAC does not yet know which ones will prove safe and effective. In addition, significant uncertainty remains regarding the level and type of protection an approved vaccine might be able to induce in different population groups, e.g., age, underlying condition, previous infection, etc.. Until this information is known, PHAC cannot estimate the time it will take to vaccinate priority groups.
With regard to part (d), see response for part (a).
With regard to part e), see response for part (a).
With regard to part (f), once a vaccine candidate has completed advanced clinical trials, NACI will refine and recalibrate its preliminary guidance on target groups, based on additional safety and efficacy data from advanced clinical trials; availability of supply; one- or multi-dose schedules; whether/how to vaccinate children and pregnant women; and policy frameworks regarding ethics, equity and economics.
Provinces and territories, P/Ts, are responsible for the administration and delivery of health care services, including immunization-related programs. Immunization policies and schedules are developed by P/Ts or their expert immunization advisory committees, based on jurisdiction-specific needs, other immunization recommendations, such as NACI, program resource availability and constraints, and identified priorities. As such, each P/T will determine the percentage of doses that will be allocated to each of its initial priority groups.
With regard to part (g), see response for part (f).
With regard to part (h), NACI reviewed available evidence on the epidemiology and burden of COVID-19 to develop its preliminary guidance on priority immunization strategies with associated target groups. As noted, once a vaccine candidate has completed advanced clinical trials, NACI will refine and recalibrate its preliminary guidance on target groups, based on additional safety and efficacy data from advanced clinical trials; availability of supply; one- or multi-dose schedules; whether/how to vaccinate children and pregnant women; and policy frameworks regarding ethics, equity and economics.

Question No. 114--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to taxpayer money being used to sue the Conservative Party of Canada: what are the total legal fees and other related expenditures to date spent by CBC/Radio-Canada in relation to its ongoing lawsuit against the Conservative Party of Canada?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information on the expenditures made in relation to the current civil litigation action against the Conservative Party of Canada has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes solicitor-client privilege.
Collapse
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 260--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the government requiring employees to sign non-disclosure agreements: (a) how many public servants currently employed by the government were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, broken down by department or agency; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a), by section or branch of the relevant department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 261--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Canada 150 commemorative plaques: (a) how many plaques have been approved for distribution; (b) what is the breakdown of plaque distribution by province and by city; (c) what is the location and the rationale for the award of a plaque to each location in (b); (d) what is the total cost of the plaques and what is the cost per unit; (e) have the plaques been installed with government resources, and, if so, (i) which department is responsible, (ii) what is the labour cost associated with the installation; and (f) are there any maintenance costs, and, if so, what are they?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 262--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to vehicles purchased by the government for the G20 Summit: (a) how many vehicles were purchased; (b) what was the market value of each individual vehicle purchased at the time of purchase; (c) how many of the vehicles in (a) were put up for sale by the government; (d) of the vehicles in (c), how many were sold; (e) what was the individual selling price for each vehicle sold; and (f) of the vehicles in (c), how many (i) remain, (ii) are still up for sale, including the individual selling price, (iii) are being used by the government, (iv) are in storage?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 263--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Department of National Defence capital equipment projects over $100 million: (a) what is the name of each project that has received financial authority for project implementation from the Treasury Board Secretariat since 2010, and (i) when did each project receive its initial financial authority, (ii) what was the value of each authority when initially granted, (iii) what is the value of the project’s final or most recent authorities, and the date of change of financial authority; and (b) what is the name of each project that has received financial authority for project implementation from the Minister of National Defence since 2010, and (i) when did each project receive its initial financial authority, (ii) what was the value of each authority when initially granted, (iii) what is the value of the project’s final or most recent authority, and the date of change of financial authority?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 264--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to the $1.6 billion in funding to support Alberta oil and gas, announced in December 2018: (a) how were these funds allocated, broken down by (i) public body, such as department or Crown corporation, (ii) program, (iii) quarter, or fiscal year, if quarterly data is not kept; and (b) in the case of funds disbursed as loans to businesses, for each loan, what are the details, including (i) the amount of the loan, (ii) the recipient, (iii) the purpose of the loan, (iv) the public body and program authorizing the loan, (v) the quarter in which it was granted, or fiscal year, if quarterly data is not kept?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 265--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to programs, departments and Crown corporations participating in the Clean Growth Hub: (a) how much was allocated to each program since 2015, excluding the Business Development Bank of Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and Export Development Canada, broken down by (i) department, (ii) fiscal year; (b) since 2015, how much was spent by each program, excluding the Business Development Bank of Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and Export Development Canada, broken down by (i) program, (ii) department, (iii) fiscal year, (iv) province in which the money was spent; and (c) how much was spent by the Business Development Bank of Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and Export Development Canada on loans or programs specifically related to clean technology or sustainable development since 2015, broken down by (i) program, (ii) Crown corporation, (iii) fiscal year, (iv) province or country, if the money was spent abroad?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 266--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Department of Justice’s consultations on medical assistance in dying (MAID) eligibility criteria and request process: (a) how many online submissions were received; (b) what is the breakdown of submissions by (i) province or territory, (ii) urban or rural area, (iii) other demographics; (c) for each question in the consultation, what is the breakdown of the number of submissions for each of the possible answers; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c), by (i) province or territory, (ii) urban or rural area, (iii) other demographics?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 267--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to government evidence or studies related to the effectiveness of measures being considered by the government in relation to firearms: (a) what measures are currently being considered or implemented; (b) for each of the measures in (a), does the government have any evidence that such measures would be effective; and (c) based on the evidence in (b), what will be the projected impact of each measure, including the effect on various crime rates?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 268--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the government missing the deadline to raise our bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status from "Controlled Risk to BSE" to "Negligible Risk to BSE" with the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in the summer of 2019: (a) why did the government miss the deadline; (b) has the government sought a waiver or exemption with the OIE for the missed deadline; (c) has the government filed an application with the OIE for the “Negligible Risk“ status, and, if so, on what date was the application filed; (d) what measures have been put in place since the missed deadline to ensure that future deadlines are not missed; (e) has the government received any indication from the OIE regarding whether or not the status will be raised to “Negligible Risk“ in March 2020; and (f) will the raising of the status be delayed and, if so, until when?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 269--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the government's response to question Q-143, indicating that the $56,000 owed to the managers of the Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas has been paid: (a) did the government pay the balance, or was the amount owing settled in another way, and, if so, what are the details of how the matter was settled; and (b) as of what date was the payment made or the outstanding amount settled?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 270--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to expenditures on gifts for diplomats in relation to the ongoing campaign for a UN Security Council seat: (a) what is the total amount spent on gifts; and (b) what are the details of each gift, including the (i) description, (ii) cost per unit, (iii) number of units purchased?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 271--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to expenditures made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to its current civil litigation action against the Conservative Party of Canada regarding the use of footage during the 2019 election campaign: (a) what is the total of all expenditures incurred to date in relation to the matter; and (b) what is the itemized breakdown of the expenditures?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 272--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the $196,010,248 loan that was written off from Export Development Canada’s Canada Account: (a) who received the loan; (b) what was the purpose of the loan; and (c) why was it written off?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 273--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the 16 CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft purchased by the government: (a) what are the operational limitations of the aircraft; (b) what operational limitations were discovered during any phase of the pre-acceptance testing; (c) what specific content in the aircraft’s manual is under dispute; (d) what specific Canadian requirements do the aircraft manuals suggest the aircraft does not meet; and (e) what are the critical safety aspects of the technical manuals currently under discussion between Canada and Airbus?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 274--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the report of the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans entitled “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits”: (a) what directives has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans given to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to fulfill recommendations Nos. 1 through 20, broken down by recommendation; (b) what funding streams have been allocated to fulfill recommendations Nos. 1 through 20, broken down by recommendation; and (c) what plans and timelines have been established by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to fulfill recommendations Nos. 1 through 20, broken down by recommendation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 275--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the decision by the Minister of Finance to reclassify expenditures made to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other multilateral development banks from provisioned assets with no residual value to a full investment asset: (a) why was the change made; (b) when did this accounting change go into effect; (c) does the government have the ability to liquidate or recover this “full investment asset”, and if so, what is the manner or mechanism by which it has the ability; (d) what are the details of each payment made to a multilateral development bank or similar type of institution, going back as far as records are available, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) manner in which expenditure was records (non-budgetary statutory expense, fully expensed payment, full investment asset, etc.); (e) what are the revised deficit or surplus levels for each of the past 20 years based on the minister’s new way of classifying these expenditures; (f) which outside firms were hired by the Department of Finance to provide position papers on this matter; (g) what position did each firm listed in (f) provide to the government; and (h) what are the details of all contracts related to (f), including (i) name of firm, (ii) initial contract amount, (iii) final contract amount, (iv) goods or services delivered, (v) start and end date of contract, (vi) date position paper was delivered to the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 276--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the June 22, 2018, government news release titled “The Government of Canada Announces Repairs to Graham’s Pond Harbour”: (a) what specific repairs to the Graham’s Pond Harbour have been completed since the announcement; (b) what are the total expenditures related to the repairs since June 22, 2018; (c) what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) amount, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) vendor, (iv) program from which expenditure funding was provided; and (d) if any repairs associated with the announcement have not yet been completed, on what date is completion expected, broken down by repair?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 277--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the September 17, 2018, government news release titled “Minister Brison announces Government of Canada investment in Delhaven Harbour”: (a) what specific expenditures for the harbour infrastructure in Delhaven have been made since the announcement, including (i) date of expenditure, (ii) recipient, (iii) amount, (iv) project description, (v) program name under which funding was delivered; (b) what are the total expenditures since September 17, 2018, on improvements to Delhaven Harbour; and (c) if there are any projects or expenditures related to the announcement which have not yet been delivered, what are the details of each project or expenditure, and what is the reason for not yet delivering the project or expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 278--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to funds paid by the government to finfish aquaculture producers in compensation for disposal of finfish at aquaculture facilities since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of compensation paid to finfish aquaculture producers; and (b) what are the details of all compensations paid, including (i) amount, (ii) date of payment, (iii) name of finfish aquaculture producer, (iv) location of finfish aquaculture production facility, (v) reason for disposal of finfish for which compensation was paid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 279--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the comments by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on CTV’s Question Period on Sunday, February 2, 2020, that “if you’re a distributor of content in Canada […] we would ask that they have a licence”: (a) are individuals who post their opinions on social media considered to be distributors of content; (b) what is the government’s criteria for who is considered to be a distributor of content; (c) is there a threshold in terms of social media audience or followers which an individual must meet before being considered a distributor of content, and, if so, what is the threshold; (d) has the government received any legal opinions concerning whether or not its plan to require a licence would survive a charter challenge, and, if so, what are the details of any such legal opinions, including (i) who provided it, (ii) what the opinion is; (e) what are the planned consequences for distributors who do not acquire or maintain a licence; and (f) what is the projected number of distributors who would be required to obtain a licence under the plan?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 280--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the impact of SNC-Lavalin’s guilty plea in December 2019 on fraud charges in relation to the company’s contract to support servicing of minor warships and auxiliary vessels: (a) what impact will the guilty plea have on the scheduled renewal of the contract; (b) what specific considerations will the government take into account when deciding the status of the renewal; (c) what is the projected timeline for either renewing this contract or awarding a new contract to another company; and (d) what changes has the government made to the way it conducts business with SNC-Lavalin following the December 2019 guilty plea?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 281--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the government’s contracting and integrity regime framework: (a) which corporations have been formally investigated under the framework; (b) of the corporations in (a), which ones (i) received sanctions, (ii) were found in violation of the framework but received an exemption or waiver from sanctions, (iii) were found not to be in violation; (c) what are the details of each exemption or waiver from sanctions, including (i) the name of the corporation, (ii) the date the waiver or exemption was granted, (iii) the rationale or justification for the waiver or exemption, (iv) the minister who provided the exemption or waiver?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 282--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy, broken down by stream (i.e. new construction, housing repair and renewal), year of submission, province, number of units, and dollar amount for each finalized application: (a) how many applications have been received for the National Housing Co-Investment Fund since 2018; (b) how many applications have had funding agreements finalized since 2018; (c) how many applications have been declined since 2018; (d) how many applications are currently being assessed; and (e) for applications that resulted in finalized funding agreements, what was the average length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their funding agreement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 283--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity’s title: how does the minister define and measure prosperity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 284--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s First-Time Home Buyer Incentive, since the program was launched: (a) how many loans have been approved; (b) how many loans have been funded; and (c) how many loan applications have been withdrawn after approval but before funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 285--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the instruction in the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity’s mandate letter to “ […] better incorporate quality of life measurements into government decision-making and budgeting”: (a) which quality of life indicators will the minister consider; (b) how will the indicators in (a) be measured; (c) without a definition of the middle class, as noted in the minister’s answer to question Q-89, dated December 6, 2019, how will the minister determine whether the indicators in (a) apply to Canadians in given income ranges; (d) how many of the indicators in (a) must a Canadian demonstrate to qualify as middle class; and (e) to what degree or intensity must a Canadian demonstrate the indicators in (d) to qualify as part of the middle class?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 286--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the instruction in the mandate letter of the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance to “ […] ensure that the Department of Finance has the analytical and advisory capabilities that it needs to support and measure the impact of an economic agenda focused on growing the middle class and those people working hard to join it”: (a) which income, expense and lifestyle choice factors will the minister consider in measuring the effect of measures to grow the middle class and those working to join it; (b) without a definition of the middle class, as noted in the minister’s answer to question Q-89, dated December 6, 2019, how will the minister determine whether measures to grow the middle class and those working to join it are affecting the target demographics; (c) how does the minister define “those people working hard to join [the middle class];” (d) how will the Department of Finance support measures to grow the demographic in (c); and (e) relative to what will the minister measure growth of the respective demographics in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 287--
Mr. James Cumming:
With regard to government advertising expenditures, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total amount spent on advertising with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation–Société Radio-Canada during the (i) 2017, (ii) 2018, (iii) 2019 calendar years; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by platform (i.e. English television, French television, online, etc.), if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 288--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the government’s Connect to Innovate program: (a) how much of the $500 million committed investment has been distributed; (b) how much of the remaining funds are expected to be distributed by the end of the commitment in 2021; (c) how many applications have been made to the program; (d) how many applications have been assessed and responded to; (e) how many applicants are currently awaiting responses; (f) for each instances in (e) what are the details of all applications received to date, including (i) name of the applicant, (ii) name of the project, (iii) location, (iv) date the application was received, (v) total funding requested, (vi) description of the project; (g) how many applications have been rejected; and (h) of the 900 communities intended to be reached by the Connect to Innovate Program how many have been successfully reached?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 289--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the $120,000 sole-source contract being given to Security Council Report in relation to the bid for a UN Security Council Seat: (a) did the fact that the company is chaired by former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock factor into the decision to award the contract to the firm; (b) were other firms considered for the contract, and, if not, why not; (c) what led to the government to decide that Security Council Report was the best qualified firm for the contract; (d) which minister made or approved the decision to award this contract to this firm; (e) on what date was the decision made or approved; and ( f) what specific goods or services are expected to be provided by the firm?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 290--
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to government departments and agencies which accept credit card payments: what was the total amount paid to (i) Visa, (ii) Mastercard, (iii) American Express, (iv) other credit card companies, in relation to credit card processing fees in each of the last three years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 291--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the requirement for media organization to receive a Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization (QCJO) status from the government in order to receive certain tax credits: (a) how many applications for QCJO status were received; (b) how many applications were successful; (c) what are the names of the organizations which the government approved for a QCJO status; and (d) what are the names of the organizations which applied for QCJO status, but were denied by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 292--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the First-Time home buyer incentive (FTHBI) announced by the government in 2019, between September 1, 2019, and February 1, 2020: (a) how many applicants have applied for mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province and municipality; (b) of those applicants, how many have been approved and accepted mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province and municipality; (c) of those applicants listed in (b), how many approved applicants have been issued the incentive in the form of a shared equity mortgage; (d) what is the total value of incentives (shared equity mortgages) under the FTHBI that have been issued, in dollars; (e) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is that value of each of the mortgage loans; (f) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is the mean value of the mortgage loan; (g) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers through the FTHBI to date; (h) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the percentage of loans originated with each lender comprising more than 5% of total loans issued; (i) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the value of outstanding loans insured by each Canadian mortgage insurance company as a percentage of total loans in force; and (j) what is the govermnent's position on expanding the FTHBI to make eligible Canadians with incomes above $120,000 a year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 293--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to videos produced by the government for usage on government websites or for internal usage, since January 1, 2019: (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. 294--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to videos produced by the government for public distribution, since January 1, 2019: (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. 295--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to classified or protected documents at Global Affairs Canada, since January 1, 2019: (a) how many instances have occurred where it was discovered that classified or protected documents were left or stored in a manner which did not meet the requirements of the security level of the documents (i) in the National Capital Region, (ii) within Canada, (iii) outside of Canada, including at missions abroad, broken down by mission; (b) how many of these instances occurred in the offices of ministerial exempt staff; and (c) how many employees have lost their security clearance as a result of such infractions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 296--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to the commitments made in Budget 2019, Chapter 3: Advancing Reconciliation of the Budget Plan: (a) what are the total expenditures to date in relation to the commitments in Chapter 3; (b) what is the breakdown of expenditures to date by each of the six parts outlined in Chapter 3; and (c) what is the breakdown of expenditures to date, by each of the programs or commitments made in Chapter 3?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 297--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to Canada Child Benefit (CCB), since its creation: (a) what percentage of Manitoba on reserve First Nation families are eligible for CCB payments, broken down by reserve; (b) what percentage of Manitoba on reserve First Nation families are receiving CCB payments, broken down by reserve; and; (c) what steps the government has taken to ensure that all eligible First Nation families on reserve are receiving these payments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 298--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to government action specifically aimed at stopping money laundering in British Columbia: (a) what specific measures, if any, has the government taken since 2018; (b) for each measure in (a), what are the total expenditures or government contribution to date; (c) does the government have any statistics in relation to how large the money laundering problem is (i) in British Columbia, (ii) across Canada, and, if so, what are the details of statistics; and (d) does the Canada Revenue Agency have any statistics or projections in relation to the impact of money laundering on taxation revenue, and, if so, what are the details of the statistics or projections?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 299--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the export of plastic waste to foreign countries since 2016, broken down by year: (a) how much plastic waste has been exported to foreign countries; (b) what amount of plastic waste was exported for recycling purposes; (c) what amount of plastic waste was exported for final disposal; (d) how many permits to export plastic waste were issued in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; and (e) what is the breakdown of (a) through (d) by destination country, if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 300--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Minister of Finance’s trip to Davos for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in January 2020: (a) who travelled with the minister, excluding security personnel and journalists, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title; (b) what was the total cost of the trip to taxpayers, and, if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost of the trip to taxpayers; (c) what were the costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each expense; (d) what are the details of all the meetings attended by the minister and those on the trip, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) the participants, (iv) the topics discussed; and (e) did any advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives accompany the minister, and, if so, what are their names, and on behalf of which firms did they accompany the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 301--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade’s trip to Davos for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in January 2020: (a) who travelled with the minister, excluding security personnel and journalists, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title; (b) what was the total cost of the trip to taxpayers, and, if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost of the trip to taxpayers; (c) what were the costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each expense; (d) what are the details of all the meetings attended by the minister and those on the trip, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) the participants, (iv) the topics discussed; and (e) did any advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives accompany the minister, and, if so, what are their names, and on behalf of which firms did they accompany the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 302--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to advertising paid for by the government for each fiscal year from April 1, 2011, to the present date: (a) how much did the government spend on advertising; (b) what was the subject of each advertisement and how much was spent on each subject; (c) which department purchased the advertising and what are the detailed expenditures of each department in this regard; (d) for each subject and department mentioned in (b), how much was spent on each type of advertising, including but not limited to (i) television, specifying the stations, (ii) radio, specifying the stations, (iii) print, i.e. newspapers and magazines, specifying the names of the publications, (iv) the Internet, specifying the names of the websites, (v) billboards, specifying their locations, (vi) bus shelters, specifying their location, (vii) advertising in all other publicly accessible places; (e) for each type of advertising in (d), was it in Canada or abroad; (f) for the answers in (b), (c) and (d), how long did the advertisements run for; (g) for each advertising purchase, who signed the contracts; (h) for each advertisement, who was involved in the production; (i) for each advertisement, was a third party involved in its publication or did a third party coordinate other advertisements based on the government advertisements; and (j) for each advertisement, did the purchase and publication coincide with a specific event, such as a sporting event?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 303--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regards to Detention Benefits in the New Veterans Charter: (a) how was the minimum of 30 days of detention to qualify for benefits decided upon; (b) was any consideration ever given to a time limit lower than 30 days, and what was the rational for not choosing a lower minimum; (c) what are the details of all briefing notes prepared on the subject since November 4, 2015, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) recipient, (iv) date prepared, (v) internal tracking number; and (d) what are the details of all responses to the briefing notes in (c), including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) recipient, (iv) date prepared, (v) internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 304--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the closing of the Ottawa River to marine traffic during the flooding of spring 2019: (a) what are the details of any briefing notes prepared for the Minister of Transport on the subject, including (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) internal tracking number; and (b) what are the details of any responses to the briefing notes in (a) including (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) recipient, (iv) date prepared, and (iv) internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 305--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, for fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19: (a) what was the number of applications received; (b) what was the number of applications for which a hearing was not granted; (c) what was the number of successful appeals; (d) what was the average time between the submission of application and the appeal; (e) what was the median time between the submission of application and the appeal; (f) what was the shortest time between the submission of application and the appeal; and (g) what was the longest time between the submission of application and the appeal?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 306--
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the handling of investigations and prosecutions pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act: (a) how much money was spent by Environment and Climate Change Canada on investigating violations of the act since 2015, broken down by year; and (b) how much money was spent on litigation and other proceedings against Volkswagen Canada since 2015, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 307--
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to Canadian Environmental Protection Act investigations and prosecutions since 2015, broken down by year and by category of offence: (a) how many investigations were conducted; (b) how many investigations have resulted in prosecutions; (c) how many prosecutions have resulted in convictions; (d) what was the average length in days of an investigation that resulted in a conviction, from initiation to either laying of charges or discontinuation for (i) small and medium enterprises, (ii) large enterprises; (e) how much money was spent investigating violations by small and medium enterprises, broken down by industry; (f) how much money was spent on investigating violations by large businesses, broken down by industry; (g) how much money was spent prosecuting violations by small and medium enterprises, broken down by type of business; and (h) how much money was spent prosecuting violations by large enterprises, broken down by type of business?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 308--
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to Environment and Climate Change Canada, carbon emissions reduction measures undertaken by the government, and carbon emissions projections: (a) what measures did the government identify to reduce emissions; (b) what measures identified in (a) are considered to have been fully implemented; (c) for each measure identified in (b), what are the (i) anticipated emissions reductions expressed in metric tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide for each year from 2015 to 2030, (ii) emissions reductions reached expressed in Mt of carbon dioxide for each year from January 2015 to January 2020, (iii) total anticipated emissions reductions by the year 2030; (d) what measures to reduce emissions identified in (a) are considered to be in the process of being implemented; (e) for each measure identified in (d), what are the (i) anticipated emissions reductions expressed in Mt of carbon dioxide for each year from 2015 to 2030, (ii) emissions reductions reached expressed in Mt of carbon dioxide for each year from January 2015 to January 2020, (iii) what are the total anticipated emissions reductions by the year 2030; and (f) what are the projected emissions for the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project (i) upstream, (ii) downstream?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 310--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the Phoenix pay system and the problems experienced by constituents in the riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in the municipalities of Langford, North Cowichan, Cowichan Valley B, Cowichan Valley C, Duncan, Cowichan Valley A, Cowichan Valley E, Cowichan Valley D, and Lake Cowichan: (a) how many cases are currently open, and was a case officer assigned to each; (b) for how long was each case open; (c) how many cases were resolved within the current prescribed service standards, dating back to the introduction of the Phoenix pay system; and (d) how many cases were not resolved within the current prescribed service standards, dating back to the introduction of the Phoenix pay system?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 311--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to federal funding investments in infrastructure, programs, and services in the Cowichan—Malahat—Langford riding: what is the total of the monetary investments for the riding across all government departments for the fiscal years (i) 2017-18, (ii) 2018-19, (iii) 2019-20, thus far?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 312--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to Public Services and Procurement Canada bid solicitation No. F7017-160056/C, emergency towing vessels (ETV) for the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), specifically with respect to the reference on page 175, DID I-005 Live Exercise Plan, “The Live Exercise Plan must define and describe in detail all aspects of how the Contractor intends to provide CCG crew with large vessel towing best practices, procedures, familiarization and education using the ETV and an additional ship in live exercises. The Live exercises, must be developed by the contractor and accepted by CCG and must provide an exercise plan utilizing the ETV and an additional ship as a 'casualty' vessel for demonstration of towing procedures and program exercises”, and on page 117, “The ETVs may be called upon to support other CCG programs and OPP initiatives such as Aids to Navigation (AtoN)”: (a) what information has been submitted to the CCG, demonstrating a Live Exercise Plan; (b) what actions has the contractor taken to demonstrate large vessel towing best practices and procedures; (c) how are the ETVs equipped to facilitate the handling of AtoN; and (d) what actions have the ETVs performed thus far to support AtoN?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 313--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to all federal programs, services, grants, transfers, contributions, and all other initiatives related to the construction, upgrading, renovation, and maintenance of all public and private housing: (a) broken down by fiscal year, province and municipality, what are all the projects that received funding; (b) through which specific fund or program was each funded; (c) what is the number of new housing units or dwellings created by each project; and (d) what was the total federal contribution to each, by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 314--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to federal funding through Fisheries and Oceans Canada from 2005-06 to present, broken down by year: (a) how much funding was allocated for the Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnerships Program (RFCPP); (b) how much of the allocated funding was spent through the RFCPP; (c) how much funding was allocated for the Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP); (d) how much of the allocated funding was spent through the SEP; (e) how much funding was allocated for the Coastal Restoration Fund; (f) how much of the allocated funding was spent through the Coastal Restoration Fund; (g) how much funding was allocated for the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund; and (h) how much of the allocated funding was spent through the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 315--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the mandate letter of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the establishment of the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages: (a) broken down by date and organization or individual, did the minister or departmental staff meet with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit governments and governing bodies with regard to the appointment of a Commissioner of Indigenous Languages; (b) broken down by date and organization or individual, did the minister plan consultation meetings with regard to the appointment of a Commissioner of Indigenous Languages; and (c) when will a Commissioner of Indigenous Languages be appointed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 316--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) administered by Service Canada on behalf Employment and Social Development Canada since January 2017, broken down by year and month: (a) How many Canadians received the GIS; (b) how many eligible seniors did not receive the GIS; (c) how many GIS recipients were deemed no longer entitled to receive the GIS; (d) of those in (c), how many had their GIS reinstated that same calendar year; (e) for (a) through (d), what was the year over year percentage difference; (f) what was the average time for the reinstatement of benefits mentioned in (d); (g) were there any regulatory and/or policy changes to the process by which eligibility for the GIS is determined, and, if so, what are the details of these changes; and (h) were there any regulatory and/or policy changes to the process by which those in (c) are re-evaluated for eligibility for the GIS, and, if so, what are the details of these changes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 317--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, broken down by year for the most recent 10 fiscal years for which data is available: (a) what was the number of disability benefit applications received; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were (i) rejected, (ii) approved, (iii) appealed, (iv) rejected upon appeal, (v) approved upon appeal; (c) what was the average wait time for a decision; (d) what was the median wait time for a decision; (e) what was the ratio of veteran to Case Manager at the end of each fiscal year; (f) what was the number of applications awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year; and (g) what was the number of veterans awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 318--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) since January 23, 2018: (a) for each fiscal year, funding stream and province, as well as the sum total across Canada, (i) how many statements of interest have been received, (ii) how many statements of interest were from companies with 499 employees or fewer, headquartered in Canada and not subsidiaries of a corporation headquartered abroad, (iii) how many applications have been received in total, (iv) how many applications were received from companies with 499 employees or fewer, headquartered in Canada and not subsidiaries of a corporation headquartered abroad, (v) how many successful applicants were companies with 499 employees or fewer, headquartered in Canada and not subsidiaries of a corporation headquartered abroad; (b) what was the total amount of money disbursed by the SIF for each fiscal year, funding stream and province; (c) have any SIF recipient companies failed to complete one or more reporting requirements; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, (i) which recipients failed to do so, (ii) when did the failure occur, (iii) what has the department done to enforce its reporting policy; (e) did any recipients indicate on their statements of interest that any of the activities of their proposed project were expected to occur outside of Canada; and (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what percentage of total project cost did they expect to incur outside of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 319--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage, broken down by quarter for each fiscal year since 2011-12 to date: (a) for data collected in the Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS), broken down by program component for all departmental programs, what is the processing time for grants and contribution applications between the time the program acknowledges receipt of the application and the time the department makes a decision on the application for funding; (b) for the departmental executive committee responsible for reviewing the results of the processing time data collected in GCIMS, (i) who are the members of this executive committee, (ii) how often do they meet, (iii) what is the budget allocated for its operation, (iv) what were its recommendations to the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (v) what were its recommendations to deputy ministers, (vi) what were its recommendations to assistant deputy ministers, (vii) what were its recommendations to directors general, (viii) what were its recommendations to program managers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 320--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by job title, including national first level appeals officer, national second level appeals officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator; (b) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the average number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by (i) job title, including national first level appeals officer, national second level appeals officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (c) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total cost of overtime, further broken down by (i) job title, including national first level appeals officer, national second level appeals officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (d) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of disability benefit claims, further broken down by (i) new claims, (ii) claims awaiting a decision, (iii) approved claims, (iv) denied claims, (v) appealed claims; (e) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many new disability benefit claims were transferred to a different VAC than that which conducted the intake; (f) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the number of (i) case managers, (ii) veterans service agents;
(g) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many case managers took a leave of absence, and what was the average length of the leave of absence; (h) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, accounting for all leaves of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many full-time equivalent case managers were present and working, and what was the case manager to veteran ratio; (i) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were disengaged from their case manager; (j) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the highest number of cases assigned to an individual case manager; (k) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were on a waitlist for a case manager; (l) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, for work usually done by regularly employed case managers and veteran service agents, (i) how many contracts were awarded, (ii) what was the duration of each contract, (iii) what was the value of each contract; (m) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by VAC office, what were the service standard results; (n) what is the mechanism for tracking the transfer of cases between case managers when a case manager takes a leave of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave; (o) what is the department’s current method for calculating the case manager to veteran ratio;
(p) what are the department’s quality assurance measures for case managers and how do they change based on the number of cases a case manager has at that time; (q) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many individuals were hired by the department; (r) how many of the individuals in (q) remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (s) of the individuals in (q) who did not remain employed beyond the probation period, how many did not have their contracts extended by the department; (t) does the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what are the reasons for which employees were not kept beyond the probation period; (u) for the individuals in (q) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office; (v) during the last five fiscal years for which data is available, broken down by month, how many Canadian Armed Forces service veterans were hired by the department; (w) of the veterans in (v), how many remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (x) of the veterans in (v) who are no longer employed by the department, (i) how many did not have their employment contracts extended by the department, (ii) how many were rejected on probation; (y) if the department tracks the reasons why employees are not kept beyond the probation period, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what are the reasons why veteran employees are not kept beyond the probation period; (z) for the veterans in (v) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what were the reasons for their departure, broken down by VAC office; (aa) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many employees have quit their job at VAC; and (bb) for the employees in (aa) who quit their job, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 321--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the transport of the CCGS McIntyre Bay and CCGS Pachena Bay from the east coast to the west coast: (a) who paid for the transport of the ships; (b) which company provided the transport; (c) was the company reimbursed to bring the ships out; (d) did the government go to public tender to provide the transport; (e) was transport included in the Request for Proposal for the tugboats (Emergency Towing Vessels RFP – F7017-160056/c), and, if so, were points awarded to the winning bid given to the company that provided the transport; (f) did Atlantic Towing produce certification confirming output after all required engine driven consumers (shaft generators, etc.) were taken into account; (g) were there competing bids to bring the two ships out by truck or another method, and, if so, what were they and the associated bid costs; (h) what was the cost to load the McIntyre Bay and Pachena onto the Atlantic Raven; and (i) what was the cost to unload them once reaching their final pacific destination?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 322--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the Employment Insurance (EI) adjudication process and the current status of EI applications: (a) what is the current backlog of adjudications waiting in the queue; (b) what is the current average time between the beginning of an adjudication process and its completion; (c) what percentage of the applications are removed from the automated process after 28 days and sent to manual adjudication; (d) what percentage of EI applications are handled automatically (i.e. without manual intervention); (e) what percentage of applications are handled by the automated system and is that close to the original estimate of 85%; and (f) what action is the government taking to address the delays and backlog in the adjudication system?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 323--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and its research report entitled “Tax Gap: A Brief Overview”, which estimated that the tax gap for the 2014 tax year was between $21.8 billion and $26 billion: (a) what is the estimated tax gap, broken down by each of the last five years; and (b) for each of the last five years, what is the (i) federal tax gap estimate before audit, (ii) percentage of corresponding revenues, broken down by tax gap component?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 324--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway 17 between Kenora and the Manitoba border: (a) what is the total amount of money the government has allocated to date for the project; (b) when was each amount in (a) allocated, and under what program; (c) if no money has been allocated to date, will the government be allocating funding for the project, and, if so, how much money; and (d) will the government commit to the formula that was used in the past, whereby the federal government provides 50% of the funding, while the provincial government of Ontario provides the other 50%, and, if not, what funding formula will the government commit to in relation to this project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 325--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the government’s administration of section 42.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (a) how many applications have been received under this section, since 2013, broken down by year; and (b) what is the status of each application in (a), including (i) date the application was received, (ii) date a decision was made, (iii) decision, (iv) number of days between the date the application was received and the date a decision was made?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 326--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the comments of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to the media at CropConnect in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in February 2020, stating “I already had data from the department last fall or earlier this winter”, in reference to the impact of the carbon tax on farmers: (a) what data did the minister receive from the department; and (b) on what date was the data received?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 327--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the government’s AgriStability Program: (a) what was the actual or estimated cost to administer the program, for each of the last five years, broken down by year; and (b) how many employees or full-time equivalents at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have been assigned to administer the program, broken down by each of the last five years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 328--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the Efficient Grain Dryer Program announced by the government on February 10, 2020: (a) what is the projected cost to administer the program, broken down by type of cost; and (b) how many employees or full-time equivalents at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have been assigned to administer the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 329--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Prime Minister's trip to Germany in February 2020: (a) with the exception of security personnel and journalists who accompanied the Prime Minister, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title, in total, how much did this trip cost taxpayers, and if the final cost is not yet known, what is the best estimate of the cost of this trip to taxpayers; (b) what were the costs related to (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each of these expenses; (c) what are the details of all meetings attended by the Prime Minister and others who took part in the trip, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) the participants, (iv) the topics discussed; and (d) did any spokespeople, consultant lobbyists or corporate representatives accompany the Prime Minister and, if so, what are their names and on behalf of which corporations did they accompany the Prime Minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 330--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to data, information or privacy breaches in ministers' offices and the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO), since November 2015: (a) how many breaches have occurred in total, broken down by (i) minister's office, including the PMO, (ii) number of individuals affected by the breach, (iii) year; (b) of those breaches identified in (a), how many have been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, broken down by (i) minister's office, including the PMO, (ii) number of individuals affected by the breach, (iii) year; and (c) how many breaches are known to have led to criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft, broken down by (i) minister's office, including the PMO, (ii) year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 331--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Minister of Finance's trip to Calgary to speak to members of the Economic Club of Canada on February 10, 2020: (a) who travelled with the minister, excluding security personnel and journalists, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title; (b) what was the total cost of the trip to taxpayers, and if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost of the trip to taxpayers; (c) what were the costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each expense; (d) what are the details of all the meetings attended by the minister and those on the trip, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) the participants, (iv) the topics discussed; and (e) did any advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives accompany the minister, and, if so, what are their names, and on behalf of which firms did they accompany the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 332--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to expenses on photographs or photography services by Canadian Heritage, or any other department, for visits of members of the British royal family from the month of November 2015 until now: (a) what is the total of these expenses; (b) what is the name of each supplier; (c) what were the date and duration of each photography contract; (d) what were the initial and final values of each contract; (e) what is the file number of each contract; and (f) what were the costs of each photography session?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 333--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages' trip to Edmonton to participate in a funding announcement to help western Canadian companies, in February 2020: (a) who travelled with the minister, excluding security personnel and journalists, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title; (b) what was the total cost of the trip to taxpayers, and if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost of the trip to taxpayers; (c) what were the costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each expense; (d) what are the details of all meetings attended by the minister and those on the trip, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) the participants, (iv) the topics discussed; and (e) did any advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives accompany the minister, and, if so, what are their names, and on behalf of which firms did they accompany the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 334--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to government advertising between fiscal years 2011-12 and 2018-19, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how much has each department, agency and Crown corporation spent on advertising (i) on Facebook, (ii) on Xbox, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, (iii) on YouTube, (iv) in sponsored tweets on Twitter, (v) on Instagram; (b) for each advertisement, what was its (i) nature, (ii) purpose, (iii) target audience or demographic profile, (iv) cost; (c) what was the media authorization number of each advertisement; and (d) what are the reference numbers of the documents, reports and memoranda concerning each advertisement or its after-the-fact evaluation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 335--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Local Journalism Initiative: (a) how many stories were distributed to media organizations through the initiative’s Creative Commons license; and (b) what were the details of all stories in (a), including (i) date written, (ii) title, (iii) author?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 336--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to online advertising and digital spending by the government: (a) how does each department or agency currently track and verify the placement of its online advertising or digital spending; (b) what was the total amount spent on online advertising or digital spending last year; (c) of the amount in (b), how much was (i) trackable, (ii) non-trackable or non-verifiable; and (d) for each non-trackable or non-verifiable advertisement placed last year, (i) what was the title or description of the advertisement, (ii) how did the government confirm that the supplier had successfully placed the advertisement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 337--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the government’s purchase of subscription packages for SiriusXM Satellite and Internet radio since January 1, 2016, broken down by department or agency and by year: (a) what are the total expenditures; (b) how many subscriptions were purchased, broken down by length and type; and (c) what was the price of each type of subscription in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 338--
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada and the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals to the ISS have been heard in person in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals to the ISS have been heard by teleconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) are currently assigned to the ISS; (k) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (l) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (m) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (o) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (p) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed;
(t) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (u) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS in 2018-19, in total and broken down by month; (v) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed in 2018-19; (w) how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed in 2018-19; (x) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed in 2018-19 (y) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (dd) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD in 2018-19; (ee) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2018-19; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2018-19; (gg) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2018-19; (hh) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (nn) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (oo) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness in 2018-19, broken down by (i) month, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship in 2018-19, broken down by (i) month, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted;
(rr) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ss) how many casefiles have been reviewed by the special unit created within the department to review backlogged social security appeals; (tt) how many settlements have been offered; (uu) how many settlements have been accepted; (vv) how much has been spent on the special unit within the department; (ww) what is the expected end date for the special unit within the department; (xx) for 2018 and 2019, what is the average amount of time for the department to reach a decision on an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month; and (yy) for 2018 and 2019, what is the average amount of time for the department to reach a decision on the reconsideration of an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 339--
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the government's objective of reducing poverty by 50% by 2030 compared to the poverty rate in 2015: (a) how many annual projection scenarios have been established by Employment and Social Development Canada; (b) for each of the scenarios in (a), what are the annual projections of the evolution of this objective, for the years (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022, (vi) 2023, (v) 2024, (vi) 2025, (vii) 2026, (viii) 2027, (ix) 2028, (x) 2029, (xi) 2030; (c) how many annual projection scenarios have been established by Employment and Social Development Canada for the evolution of the poverty rate; and (d) for each of the scenarios in (c), what are the targets and the results of the scenarios of annual projections of the rate of poverty, for the years (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022, (iv) 2023, (v) 2024, (vi) 2025, (vii) 2026, (viii) 2027, (ix) 2028, (x) 2029, (xi) 2030?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 340--
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the Employment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security program call centers, broken down by fiscal year and by call center for each fiscal year between 2011-12 and 2018-19: (a) what is the annual allocated funding; (b) how many full-time call agents have been allocated; (c) how many calls could not be routed to a call agent; (d) what is the speed target set by the department; (e) what is the actual performance against the speed target; (f) what is the average waiting time before speaking to an agent; (g) what is the call volume threshold established by the department beyond which callers are diverted to the automated system; (h) what is the error rate of the information transmitted by the call agents to the callers; and (i) what is the method used by the department to assess the error rate of the information transmitted by the call agents to the callers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 341--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the status of projects funded by the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor) since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all projects funded to date, including (i) recipient, (ii) project description, (iii) location, (iv) program under which funding was delivered, (v) total federal commitment, (vi) total federal funding actually delivered to date, (vii) current status of project; (b) for each project in (a), is the project ahead of schedule, on schedule, or behind schedule; (c) for each project in, (a) what was the (i) original projected completion date, (ii) current projected completion date; and (d) for each project that is behind schedule, what is the reason for the delay, broken down by project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 342--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs entitled “A Path to Growth: Investing in the North”, tabled in the House in April 2019: (a) what directives has the (i) Minister of Northern Affairs, (ii) Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, (iii) Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, given to the departments for which they are responsible to fulfill each of the six recommendations, broken down by recommendation; (b) what funding streams have been allocated to fulfill each of the six recommendations, broken down by recommendation; and (c) what plans and timelines have been established by the (i) Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, (ii) Department of Infrastructure Canada, (iii) Department of Innovation and Economic Development Canada, to fulfill each of the six recommendations, broken down by recommendation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 343--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the government’s response to the report of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic entitled “Northern Lights: A Wake-Up Call for the Future of Canada” tabled in June 2019, and broken down by each of the 30 recommendations: (a) what directives has the government given to fulfil each of the 30 recommendations; (b) what funding streams have been allocated to fulfill each of the 30 recommendations; and (c) what plans and timelines have been established by the government to fulfill recommendations each of the 30 recommendations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 344--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regards to the Budget 2019 commitment to build or expand northern infrastructure projects “through a doubling of the federal municipal infrastructure commitment in 2018-19”: (a) what is the breakdown of this funding by project; (b) what are the details of all projects in (a), including the (i) name, (ii) description, (iii) amount of federal contribution, (iv) projected completion date; and (c) how much of this funding has been delivered to date, broken down by individual project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 345--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the CCGS McIntyre Bay and CCGS Pachena Bay: (a) what is the bollard pull of each ship; (b) does the bollard pull for each ship meet the stated minimum requirements as listed in the Public Services and Procurement Canada Request for Proposal; (c) what is the certified bollard pull of each ship after all required engine driven consumers (i.e. shaft generators, cranes, etc.) are taken into account; and (d) did Atlantic Towing produce certification confirming output after all required engine driven consumers were taken into account?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 346--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to government-owned disabled ships since January 1, 2016: (a) how many ships have been disabled; and (b) of the ships in (a), how many required an emergency tow vessel off of the Pacific Coast, broken down by year and by shepherd displacement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 347--
Mr. Scott Duvall:
With respect to harassment complaints, workplace violence complaints, and disclosures of wrongdoing related to harassment and discrimination in federal organizations (departments, agencies, Crown corporations, etc.), between fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2018-2019, broken down by federal organization, by fiscal year, and for each type of complaint mentioned: (a) how many decisions were made by the organization without conducting an initial assessment; (b) how many complaints were dismissed; and (c) how many complaints were accepted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 348--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the Canadian Experiences Fund: (a) what is the total amount of approved funding; (b) what is the complete list of approved projects; and (c) for each project in (b), what are the details, including the (i) value of the approved project, (ii) total amount of federal financing, (iii) location of the project, (iv) project description, (v) status of the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 349--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to government travel, from November 4, 2015, to February 20, 2020: (a) how many visits to First Nations reserves were made by (i) the Prime Minister, (ii) the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, (iii) the Minister of Justice, (iv) the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, (v) the Minister of Finance, (vi) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (vii) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, (viii) the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, (ix) the Minister of Natural Resources, (x) the Minister of Health, (xi) the Minister of Indigenous Services, (xii) the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, (xiii) the Deputy Prime Minister; and (b) what are the details of each visit in (a), including the (i) date of visit, (ii) reserve?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 350--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the planned February 2020 trip to the Caribbean by the Prime Minister which was cancelled: (a) what is the total of all costs incurred in relation to the planned trip, including any cancellation fees or lost deposits; and (b) what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) location, (v) description of goods or reason for expenditure (e.g. lost deposit, goods purchased but not used, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 351--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the February 2020 trip to Ethiopia, Senegal, and Germany taken by the Prime Minister and other ministers: (a) what is the total of all costs incurred to date related to the trip; and (b) what are the details of all contracts and invoices related to the trip, including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number, (vi) location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 352--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to all expenditures on hospitality (Treasury Board Object Code 0822), since November 1, 2019, broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number, (vii) number of government employees in attendance, (viii) number of other attendees, (ix) description of related hospitality event, (x) location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 353--
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to counterfeit goods discovered and seized by the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other relevant government entity, during the 2019 calendar year: (a) what is the total value of the goods discovered, broken down by month; (b) for each seizure, what is the breakdown of goods by (i) type, (ii) brand, (iii) quantity, (iv) estimated value, (v) location or port of entry where the goods were discovered, (vi) product description; (c) what percentage of the estimated total value of counterfeit imported goods are intercepted by the government; and (d) what is the government’s estimate for the value of counterfeit goods that enter Canada annually and avoid seizure by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 354--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to ministers' regional offices (MRO), as of February 2020: (a) broken down by location, what is the number of employees or full-time equivalents working in each MRO; (b) broken down by location, what is the number of exempt departmental staff working in each MRO; (c) how many government employees, excluding exempt departmental staff, currently work in each office; (d) what is the annual budget for each office; (e) what is the purpose of these offices; (f) what criteria are used to determine the location of these offices; (g) what sections or programs are administered from these offices; and (h) what are the projected annual operating costs for each office over the next year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 355--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the approximately 20,000 Atlantic salmon that escaped from the Robertson Island pen fire on December 20, 2019: (a) how many of the fish were reported recaptured to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) by Mowi ASA as of February 20, 2020; (b) how many independent reports of caught Atlantic salmon were reported to the DFO, broken down by date and location of catch; (c) how many of the escaped fish were infected with Piscine orthoreovirus; (d) how much funding has the government provided to assist with recapture; and (e) how much compensation has the government provided to Mowi ASA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 356--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to ministers' office expenses in the National Capital Region: (a) what was the total amount spent on taxis by each minister’s office for each fiscal year since 2015-16, including the current fiscal year; (b) how many employees at each minister's office have access to taxi vouchers; (c) what is the overtime cost for each minister's driver for each fiscal year since 2015-16, including the current fiscal year; (d) what was the total amount spent on Uber for each minister’s office for each fiscal year since 2015-16, including the current fiscal year; and (e) how many employees at each minister's office have access to Uber vouchers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 357--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the government’s response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: (a) what is the estimated amount the government has spent to date in response to the outbreak; (b) what is the total amount spent to date on (i) flights, (ii) other mode of transportation, (iii) quarantine facilities, (iv) other expenditures, broken down by type; (c) what are the details of all expenditures over $5,000 related to the response, including (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) location, (iv) date, (v) description of goods or services, including volume, if applicable; (d) what is the government’s policy regarding reimbursement to the Crown for Canadians who utilized the government’s evacuation flights or services; and (e) how many individuals to date has the government placed under quarantine in (i) government facilities, broken down by facility, (ii) the individual’s own residence, (iii) other facilities, broken down by facility?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 358--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to the government’s approach to the proposed Frontier mine project by Teck Resources Ltd.: (a) what specific steps, if any, did the government take in order to save the project; (b) why did the government delay its decision on approval for the project for over six months; and (c) did anyone in the government propose intentionally delaying the decision until the application was withdrawn, and, if so, what are the details of the proposal, including who made the proposal?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 359--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the government’s subsidy to VIA Rail Canada: will the government be increasing its subsidy as a result of rail blockades and the subsequent shutdown of VIA Rail service, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) original projected subsidy amount, (ii) amount of increase, (iii) increased subsidy amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 360--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to monitoring and policing of as well as litigation against lndigenous peoples, broken down by fiscal year since 2010-11: (a) how much has been spent on litigation involving First Nations; (b) how much has been spent on policing operations targeting lndigenous land defence movements; and (c) how much has been spent on surveillance, monitoring or intelligence-gathering operations targeted at lndigenous peoples by any government department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 361--
Mr. Rob Moore:
With regard to the commitment on page 30 of the 2019 Liberal election platform to plant two billion trees: (a) what is the projected breakdown of how many trees will be planted in each of the next 10 years; (b) what is the projected breakdown of how many trees will be planted in each province or territory; (c) how many of the trees will be planted in the riding of Fundy Royal; and (d) of the trees in (c), what is the breakdown by community or geographical area?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 362--
Mr. Gerald Soroka:
With regard to the economic impact of the blockades and rail service disruption in 2020: what is the government’s estimate of the economic impact of the disruption, including a breakdown of the estimate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 363--
Mr. Gerald Soroka:
With regard to communication, directives or advice received so far in 2020 by the RCMP from the government in relation to rail blockades: what are the details of all such communication, directives or advice, including (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) form of communication (phone, email, memorandum, etc.), (iv) date, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 364--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to government contracts valued between $24,000.00 and $24,999.99, signed since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total value of all such contracts; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 365--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF): (a) how many filled fighter pilot positions were there in each year from 2011 to 2020; (b) how many fighter pilot positions in total were available to fill in each year from 2011 to 2020; (c) how many combat ready CF-18 flying positions were available to fill in each year from 2011 to 2020; (d) how many flying positions were available that were not combat ready (i.e. Squadron 410 OTU, Squadron 419, wings, Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment, etc.) in each year from 2011 to 2020; (e) how many combat ready flying positions were available on each operational squadron and wing in each year from 2011 to 2020; (f) how many fighter pilot positions were available to fill in each year from 1997 to 2001; (g) how many combat ready fighter pilots were released each year from 2011 to 2020; (h) how many fighter pilots in total were released annually from 2011 to 2020; (i) what are the estimated projections for 2020 to 2034 for (i) filled fighter pilot positions, (ii) fighter pilot positions, (iii) combat ready CF-18 flying positions, (iv) flying positions that are not combat ready, (v) combat ready flying positions available on each operational squadron and wing; (j) what is the estimated production rate of CR fighter pilots for each year from 2020 to 2034; (k) what is the estimated attrition rate for fighter pilots for each year from 2020 to 2034; (l) how many fighter pilot positions and personnel in the RCAF are pre-FPC (students); (m) what is the Trained Effective Strength or operational functional point for fighter pilots; (n) what is the combat ready point for fighter pilots; (o) where and when does the combat ready point for fighter pilots take place; (p) what is the minimum, maximum and mean time, in months, between recruitment and combat ready status for fighter pilots; (q) how many fighter pilots are greater than TIP 2 in CF-18 flying positions; (r) how many fighter pilots are two-ship leads in the CF-18 flying positions; (s) how many fighter pilots are four-ship leads in the CF-18 flying positions; (t) as of February 25, 2020, how many fighter pilots are (i) combat ready, (ii) non-combat ready, (iii) wingman, (iv) fighter electronic warfare instructors, (v) fighter weapons instructors; and (u) are fighter pilot students (e.g. at Squadrons 419 and 410) included in fighter pilot positions PML or TES?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 366--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Chief Executive Officer of Invest in Canada and his performance agreement with the Invest in Canada Board of Directors, broken down by performance cycle since the inception of Invest in Canada: (a) what are the objectives based on the corporate business plan and related performance measures; (b) what are the objectives that reflect the government's priority areas of focus and related performance measures; (c) what are the objectives based on financial management priorities and related performance measures; (d) which objectives are based on risk management priorities and any other management objectives set by the board of directors (infrastructure, marketing, governance, public affairs, etc.); (e) which objectives are based on the government's priorities for financial management and related performance measures (infrastructure, marketing, governance, public affairs, etc.), and related performance measures; (f) what are the detailed results of the performance measures for each of the objectives in (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); (g) what were the details of the CEO's compensation, including salary and performance-based variable compensation; (h) how many times was the performance agreement amended during each performance cycle and what was the rationale for each amendment; (i) what was the CEO's performance rating recommended to the responsible minister by the Board of Directors; (j) what performance objectives were met; (k) what performance objectives could not be assessed and why; (l) what performance objectives were not met; (n) did the CEO receive an economic increase, and, if so, why; (o) did the CEO receive a salary range progression, and, if so, what was the rationale; and (p) did the CEO receive a lump sum payment, and, if so, what was the rationale?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 367--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the government's fire management program around the Municipality of Jasper in Jasper National Park: (a) what specific measures have been identified as necessary to prevent wildfires; (b) of the measures in (a), which (i) are currently being implemented, (ii) are planned for implementation; (c) of the projects which have yet to be implemented, when is implementation expected; and (d) what are the details of all contracts issued since January 1, 2018, in relation to the program, including, (i) date and duration of contract, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 368--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the government's commitment to combat gang violence, since January 1, 2016: (a) how much federal funding has been committed, broken down by program or project; (b) for each commitment in (a), how much funding has actually been delivered, as opposed to simply announced; and (c) what are the details of all funding which has been delivered, including (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) date funding was actually transferred, (iv) purpose of funding or project description, including location?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
8555-431-260 Non-disclosure agreements s ...8555-431-261 Canada 150 commemorative plaques8555-431-262 Vehicles purchased by the g ...8555-431-263 Department of National Defe ...8555-431-264 Funding to support Alberta ...8555-431-265 Clean Growth Hub8555-431-266 Consultations on medical as ...8555-431-267 Effectiveness of measures i ...8555-431-268 Bovine spongiform encephalo ...8555-431-269 Response to question Q-1438555-431-270 Gifts for diplomats in rela ... ...Show all topics
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-03 13:17 [p.812]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Liberal Party for sharing this speaking time with me so I can add my voice and perspective to this important debate on the new NAFTA or, as it is called now, CUSMA.
I would like to congratulate the Canadian negotiating team for getting this deal done with a U.S. administration that, at best, can be described as difficult to deal with.
This is not a perfect agreement. As parliamentarians, we are being asked to choose between the original version of NAFTA and this updated version. The original NAFTA successfully created an integrated supply chain that benefited businesses and entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, there are many flaws in the agreement that created and accelerated inequality.
For more than a decade, the Green Party has called for the renegotiation of NAFTA and the removal of problematic components. In our view, the worst part of the original agreement was the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms and the proportionality clause, both of which have been removed in CUSMA. The investor-state provisions in NAFTA allowed foreign corporations to seek financial compensation from taxpayers through private arbitration tribunals when laws and regulations got in the way of their profits. Canada is the most-sued country under these NAFTA investor-state rules, and taxpayers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to U.S. companies, but no Canadian company has ever successfully won compensation from the U.S. government.
For more than 10 years, I have worked to raise awareness about the serious problems created by investor-state provisions in our trade agreements. These provisions are anti-democratic and they obstruct good public policy and environmental protections, including action on climate change. I am happy to see the investor-state provisions removed from the CUSMA. This is a win. I would like to see investor-state dispute settlement provisions removed from all trade agreements and investment treaties that Canada has signed, and they should be excluded from any new agreements.
NAFTA's proportionality clause required that Canada export the same proportion of energy that it had on average in the previous three years, even in an energy crisis. Mexico did not agree to the inclusion of this clause. Canada, the coldest NAFTA country, signed away too much control of its energy sector. Fortunately, the proportionality clause was removed from the CUSMA. This is also a win.
The continued exemption of bulk water exports is encouraging, and the Canadian cultural exemption remains intact. These are wins as well.
The Green Party believes in fair and equitable trade that does not exploit lower labour, health, safety or environmental standards in other countries or result in the lowering of standards in Canada. Done right, trade can be an effective way to improve conditions for people and the planet rather than creating a race to the bottom.
Free trade agreements have allowed corporations to exploit lower wages and standards in other countries. Under NAFTA, many jobs in Canada were moved to Mexico for this reason. This hollowed out Canada's manufacturing and textile sectors and led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs here. When NAFTA was negotiated and signed, Canadians were promised that it would increase prosperity. In reality, NAFTA increased the wealth of the rich at the expense of working Canadians, whose wages have stagnated.
As an international human rights observer in the 1990s, I accompanied labour activists who were trying to organize workers in Guatemala's sweatshops, which produced low-cost goods for the North American market. The simple act of trying to create a union led to intimidation, violence, disappearances and murder. This was not how international trade should work. I am pleased that CUSMA would create stricter enforcement of labour standards in Mexico, would guarantee Mexican workers the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining, and would help to strengthen the labour movement there. The agreement includes a rapid response mechanism for labour violations.
These labour standards were strengthened in the new, improved version of the agreement, thanks to a push by Democrats in the United States who were not happy with the lack of proper labour standards or enforcement in the first signed version of CUSMA.
U.S. Democrats also managed to roll back the patent extensions on biologic drugs proposed in the first version of the CUSMA agreement. This change will save Canadian consumers money and make it more affordable to create a universal pharmacare program in Canada.
Thankfully, the Canadian Parliament did not rush to ratify this first signed version of the agreement, so we can all benefit from these important changes made by U.S. Democrats.
Another area of improvement is the rules of origin. Higher levels of North American content are now required before goods can be certified as made in North America. There is a new 70% North American steel and aluminum requirement for automobiles, but while the steel content requirement guarantees that steel must be produced in North America, there is not an equal requirement for aluminum. This requirement should have been included in the agreement.
Our supply management system for dairy and poultry farmers will remain intact, but one of the drawbacks of the new agreement is that it will allow imports of dairy products from the U.S. This will undermine the economic viability of Canadian farms and will require compensation to farmers.
In addition, many dairy products in the U.S. contain a genetically modified bovine growth hormone called rBGH, which is banned in Canada. We need legislation in place to ensure that U.S. products containing rBGH are either labelled or blocked from entering this country.
The CUSMA agreement makes some progress on environmental protections. Countries are committed to meet their obligations on a number of multilateral environmental treaties they have signed. These agreements are all enforceable. However, what CUSMA is missing is any mention of climate change and any obligation for the three CUSMA countries to uphold their commitments under the climate accords. While the climate change targets established in Paris are binding, there are no enforcement mechanisms or penalties for countries that do not live up to their commitments.
Increasing trade in goods will accelerate climate change. One of the best ways to combat climate change is to localize our economies as much as possible. This is especially true for agricultural products. Redundant trade, such as importing products that can easily be produced locally, does not make sense.
There are other concerns with CUSMA. The agreement fails to address the decades-long softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States. Getting the proper agreement on softwood is critical to the health of the Canadian forest industry.
The good regulatory practices chapter is also of concern. Who decides what good regulatory practices are? Will this process involve only business and government, or will civil society organizations representing labour, consumers, and the environment be involved?
The extension of copyright from 50 years after an author's death to 75 years is an unnecessary change.
It is ironic to hear the Conservatives complaining about not having enough access during the negotiation process and having to study an agreement that is a done deal. This really speaks to the lack of a clear and transparent process for negotiating trade agreements. The process of negotiating CUSMA included briefings for an expanded group of stakeholders, going beyond just the business organizations and corporations that were consulted in the past. That is an improvement, but there is still work to do to make the trade agreement negotiation process more transparent. It is unacceptable that Canadians, and the parliamentarians who represent them, can only get involved in a debate about the merits of a trade agreement once it has been completed and signed.
Both the Liberals and Conservatives complained about the secretive nature of the negotiation process while they were in opposition. The Greens believe that we should be following the European Union model for trade negotiations. We should have an open and transparent discussion and debate about Canada's objectives before negotiations start. That debate should continue during and after negotiations are concluded. Also, a socio-economic analysis of the potential impacts and benefits of a new trade agreement should be made available to all Canadians.
For years I have spoken out loudly against the corporate free trade model, so people who know me might wonder why I intend to support the CUSMA agreement. This is not a perfect agreement, the negotiation process is flawed and we can and should do better, but this is a choice between retaining the old flawed NAFTA and ratifying this new, improved version. A step forward is preferable to the status quo.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-03 17:25 [p.851]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that we are here today, as every day, on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Nation.
We are currently debating the new NAFTA. The Green Party considers this to be a real improvement over the first version of NAFTA, now that chapter 11 has been removed. That chapter was detrimental to Canadian laws and regulations and beneficial to U.S. corporations. That chapter also hurt our health and environmental protection regulations.
What is more, the section on energy in the former NAFTA will be rescinded when the new NAFTA comes into effect. This is good for us because Canada is the only NAFTA country that is still required to comply with the old export levels, which in fact undermines our own energy security.
The changes that have been made are something of a surprise given the history of trade agreements. I have long been an opponent of trade agreements that put corporate profits above sustainability, above community health, prosperity and well-being. The case of this agreement, CUSMA, is the first time, certainly in recent decades, that any trade agreement represents an improvement over what has preceded it in giving up more clout in protecting the environment and reduced the corporate powers that have been expanding ever since the neo-liberal era began.
In fact, it was in the first NAFTA that the notion of investor-state dispute resolutions gained traction, particularly in the developed world. My colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, has already spoken to this and provided some details about investor-state agreements.
I will add a little more personal detail. Before ever being involved in politics, I was always involved in the environmental movement, whether as a lawyer or in government or with environmental groups. As executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, we ran straight into the very first application of chapter 11. When NAFTA was being debated within Canada, the pernicious anti-democratic impacts of chapter 11 were unknown.
We debated many things about NAFTA in the country, but no one talked about investor-state provisions. It was something of a sleeper in the first version of NAFTA. We woke up to that sleeper when I was involved in a citizens' campaign to try to get rid of a toxic gasoline additive in the country called MMT, manganese-based toxins.
I worked with neurotoxicologists from Montreal, particularly Dr. Donna Mergler from UQAM. I worked with the car manufacturers, because this MMT as a gasoline additive gummed up the onboard diagnostics in the car, potentially violating the warranties. It was the first time to have a coalition of environmental groups, carmakers and scientists all saying this toxic gasoline additive had to be removed.
Under the minister of the environment at the time, Sheila Copps, we managed to get rid of this toxic gasoline additive, only to have Ethyl Corporation of Richmond, Virginia, bring a suit against Canada. We were shocked by this first chapter 11 challenge. In a secret tribunal, it made the case that this was going to cost it money.
It is important for members of Parliament to understand how important it is that we get rid of these provisions in every other trade agreement. The agreements need not say that the actions Canada took, under former environment minister Sheila Copps, were in any way in objection to trade. They were not hidden, veiled protective measures; they were what they said they were. Getting something that was bad for human health compromised the onboard diagnostics to ensure that pollution was controlled by the engine itself. All of these things were caused by MMT. There was no doubt about that. However, the government at the time under, former prime minister Chrétien, decided to settle with Ethyl Corporation, fearing the worst out of the secret tribunal.
We had to pay, as a country, taken out of the A-base budget of Environment Canada, millions of dollars to Ethyl Corporation of Richmond, Virginia. We had to repeal the law we passed to keep this stuff out of our environment. On top of everything else, we wrote a formal letter of apology that Ethyl Corporation could use around the world to peddle this toxic stuff in other countries.
There are many more cases like that. There is S.D. Myers of Ohio, which challenged the decision to stop the export of PCB-contaminated waste.
Probably the worst of all is the most recent case of Bilcon. A U.S. corporation brought charges against Canada for the proper use of our environmental assessment law, properly applied, the version that occurred before the 2012 demolition of environmental assessment in this country, which is still not repaired, and was able to claim that the environmental assessment panel had not been fair to this company. It would have threatened the survival of one of the world's most endangered whales, the right whales of Atlantic Canada.
I could go on, but I need to move to other sections of this agreement. It is very important that we understand the difference between two chapters. I have noticed some speakers through this debate have mistaken chapter 19, the dispute resolution portions that we are pleased to see remain, and chapter 11, a resolution of disputes between two parties who should never have the right to challenge each other, that a private corporation that is in the United States under chapter 11 of our current NAFTA has superior powers and rights to a Canadian domestic corporation. That is still the case in the countries we deal with in the TPP. We put investor-state provisions in there.
Horrifically, it is the case with the Canada-China investment treaty, which the Harper cabinet passed in secret and never came to this place. It still binds this country to allow state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic of China to secretly sue the government if we do anything that gets in the way of their profits. That is a legacy from the Conservatives that they do not seem to know about.
We have seen such damage from investor-state provisions. We need to track them down and remove them wherever they are. CUSMA is a huge improvement and sets the pace for getting rid of them elsewhere.
I am pleased to see the end of the energy security chapter. It was really strange. Mexico had no corresponding provision in its requirements to the United States. Only Canada made a commitment that we would not restrict any of our energy exports beyond the proportion that we had been selling to the United States over a period of time.
If we were selling 60% of our natural gas to the United States, we would have to continue to do that under the current provisions, which will be gone with CUSMA. Even if we were running out of natural gas, we would still have to export 60% to the United States. They were very strange provisions and we are glad they are gone.
I want to turn to three areas that have not received much attention in this debate. One is the improvements in the environment chapter and although not as strong as what was promised by the Liberals, we certainly have stronger language, and for the first time, a component of NAFTA dealing with gender rights and indigenous issues.
In the environment chapter, I am really pleased we were able to withstand efforts by Donald Trump to eliminate something that many members in this place may not have known of at all, which is the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
That commission is led by the environment ministers of the United States, Mexico and Canada. They work together to protect our environment in every country. A truly democratic provision would give each citizen of the United States, Canada, or Mexico the ability to file a complaint against a decision that would be harmful to the environment.
Any citizen or NGO of Canada, the U.S. or Mexico can bring a complaint to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation to say our government is reducing environmental protections because it wants to promote trade. It is now protected and is better funded.
I want to underscore that although it is not everything we wanted, I am pleased that indigenous handcrafted products can now be duty-free. I am pleased that various indigenous provisions of this agreement highlight the importance of indigenous people throughout Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. I am also pleased there is at least some language that the goals of all of our trade agreements and multilateral co-operation have to focus on the rights of women and girls.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 15 of 19 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data