Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 19 of 19
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 209--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to air travel complaints sent to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) since February 1, 2020, and broken down by month and subject: (a) how many air travel complaints were received; (b) what is the status of the complaints in (a) (e.g. resolved, investigation ongoing, no action taken yet, etc.); (c) what is the CTA service standard relating to resolving air travel complaints; and (d) what specific action, if any, did the CTA take to ensure that the processing and investigation of complaints would continue during the pandemic?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to air travel complaints sent to the Canadian Transportation Agency, CTA, since February 1, 2020, broken down by month and subject, the answers for part (a) are as follows: February: 4776, March: 3625, April: 2349, May: 1396, June: 1128, July: 1199, August: 897, September: 943, October: 1029, and November: 260, as of November 10. The total is 17,602
The CTA is currently processing the complaints received for the period referenced. A detailed breakdown of the subject of each complaint is not available.
The CTA reports on the subject of complaints received in its annual report. The 2019-20 annual report can be found at: www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/annual-report-2019-2020#sec10
With regard to part (b), of the complaints referenced in part (a), the CTA has processed over approximately 6,000 complaints since February 1, 2020.
With regard to part (c), the answers are as follows. With regard to facilitation, of all air travel facilitations closed, 80% are completed within 30 calendar days/20 business days from the communication of the initial position of both parties to the conclusion of facilitation.
With regard to mediation, of all air travel complaint mediations closed, 100% are completed within 30 calendar days/20 business days or within such longer period as requested by both parties.
With regard to adjudication, 80% of all air travel complaint adjudications are processed within 120 calendar days/85 business days from the opening of pleadings to the issuance of a decision, net of any pleadings filed beyond the standard answer/reply period, as established in the dispute adjudication rules.
With regard to part (d), between March 25 and June 30, 2020, the CTA temporarily paused interactions with airlines related to dispute resolution activities, to permit them to focus on immediate and urgent operational demands like repatriating Canadians stranded abroad. However, during this period, CTA staff continued to triage and process complaints, communicate with passengers and address issues raised where possible.
Notwithstanding the pause and the sudden and sustained shift to remote work, the CTA has maintained productivity levels comparable to last year’s. It has processed over 6,000 complaints since the beginning of the pandemic, including over 3,100 complaints pertaining to flight disruptions.
The CTA anticipates that resolution of complaints filed in the period after the APPR came fully into force and before the pandemic disrupted global air travel will be facilitated by the major inquiry it launched in February 2020, which focuses on alleged failures by airlines to respect their communications-related obligations under the APPR. The report of an inquiry officer assigned to gather evidence on those allegations was recently published.

Question No. 210--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) what specific support measures, if any, is VAC taking to ensure that branches of the Royal Canadian Legion are able to cover their operational costs and financially survive the pandemic; and (b) does VAC have any statistics or projections on the financial impact of the pandemic in relation to Legion branches, including how many branches may not survive without assistance from VAC and, if so, what are the statistics or projections?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and part (b), Canada’s COVID-19 economic response plan has helped to protect millions of jobs, provide emergency support to families and keep businesses afloat throughout the pandemic.
Through Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, the Government of Canada is providing $20 million to support veterans organizations facing hardship due to COVID-19. All funds were to be provided to veterans organizations by December 31, 2020.
The Government of Canada is helping organizations that serve veterans access the money they need to replace critical charitable and other revenue lost because of COVID-19. The veterans organizations emergency support fund, VOESF, will give them the resources needed to continue to operate and support the veterans community.
The $20-million veterans organizations emergency support fund was announced in November 2020, as part of the Government of Canada’s COVID-19 economic response plan. It was created to support veterans organizations experiencing financial challenges due to COVID-19. The $20-million VOESF will help the recipients cover operational costs like rent, utilities, administration and wages, and will allow them to continue to deliver important services for veterans and their families throughout the global pandemic.
Organizations that access these funds will be able to continue their work with veterans and their families during a time when it is needed most.
On December 17, 2020, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced that $2.8 million from the VOESF will go to 38 veterans organizations across Canada. These organizations are in addition to the four announced when the VOESF was launched in November 2020: Royal Canadian Legion, ANAVETS, True Patriot Love and VETS Canada.
Through the VOESF, the government was able to help a total of 42 organizations that serve over 280,000 veterans.
These organizations play a critical role in supporting the well-being of veterans and their families across the country. They carry out a range of services, such as mental health support, social and community support, commemoration efforts, animal therapy, healing through physical activity, healing through nature and counselling.
On December 21, 2020, the Royal Canadian Legion announced the Legion branches that will receive support through the VOESF. The Legion, the largest veterans organization in Canada, received $14 million from the Government of Canada to distribute to its branches across the country. This funding will help Legion branches with operational expenses such as rent, insurance, utilities and administrative costs so they can focus on providing important programs, services and support to veterans and their families, and continue their strong community presence. To date, 701 branches of the Legion have been supported through the VOESF and more funds will be disbursed in the coming weeks by the Legion’s Dominion command.
The Legion’s branches are some of the government’s most important partners in supporting veterans, and in making sure that Canadians remember the sacrifices they have made. The Government of Canada has provided them with the funding they need to make it through the pandemic and continues to work together with the Legion on behalf of veterans and their families.

Question No. 215--
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the application process for Senate appointments since October 28, 2019: (a) how many applications were received for Senate appointments; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were unsolicited applications and how many were nominated; and (c) of the nominated candidates, how many were nominated by (i) government employees, (ii) parliamentary staff, (iii) ministers or members of Parliament within the governing party?
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 number of applications and nominations received for Senate appointments will be disclosed by the independent advisory board for Senate appointments in its next report to the Prime Minister.
The process to nominate an individual for a Senate appointment involves submitting a form via the advisory board’s website with the name of the person or organization and email of the nominator; the name, email and province/territory of residence of the nominee; and a description of why the person would be well suited for the role.
The advisory board does not collect or track the title or place of work of the nominator, and it keeps the nominator’s information confidential. All individuals need to apply, whether they were nominated or not, by submitting an application package through the advisory board’s website.

Question No. 216--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada limiting its research activities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what research activities were reduced; (b) what research activities continued unimpeded; (c) what research activities remain suspended; and (d) what is the specific plan regarding when each of the research activities, which remain operating at less than full capacity, will resume operating at full capacity?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), at the beginning of the COVID-19 shutdown, most of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s, AAFC, research and development centres remained open in a limited capacity to take care of non-research, critical services such as care of livestock and collections, insects and germplasm, and the maintenance of specialized equipment and biocontainment facilities; and activities to ensure long-term stewardship of land and protect long-term studies, maintain plant germplasm, field equipment and infrastructure, maintain bee colonies and hives, and provide critical material to the sector, e.g., breeder seed.
In May and June, many field-based research projects that were time-sensitive to the planting season resumed, including registration/co-op trials, early generation variety plots to support genetic development, agronomic trials, integrated pest management research and agri-environment research.
AAFC started re-entry back into its research facilities in the middle of August. As of October 13, 2020, all 20 AAFC research centres have resumed a number of laboratory, greenhouse and barn research activities.
With regard to part (b), projects and activities that could be conducted virtually have continued throughout the pandemic.
With regard to part (c), many of AAFC’s research projects are reduced in capacity activity-wise due to COVID-19, but the extent to which these reductions will be evident at the end of fiscal has yet to be determined, as circumstances are still evolving.
With regard to part (d), specific plans to resume full operations of research activities have not been established at this time. AAFC continues to monitor the situation and is ready to adapt its approach as appropriate. The health and safety of AAFC employees continues to be the number one priority in all decision-making matters, and the department will be closely monitoring the situation across the country and continuing to adhere to guidance from local and provincial authorities.

Question No. 219--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regard to the decision by the government to have Nuctech security equipment installed in Canadian embassies and consulates and the subsequent contract awarded to Deloitte to review purchasing practices for security equipment: (a) what is the complete list of Canadian embassies, consulates, or other missions abroad that have installed the X-ray scanners from Nuctech; (b) what is the total value of all contracts Nuctech has had with Global Affairs Canada (GAC) since November 4, 2015; (c) what is the value of the contract awarded to Deloitte to review the purchasing practices for security equipment; (d) what is the scope of the Deloitte review; (e) when will the review be completed, and will the results be made public; and (f) did the government receive any written guarantees from Nuctech that any information obtained, either directly or indirectly, from the company’s dealings with GAC or the government, would not be provided to the Chinese government and, if so, what are the details of any such guarantees?
Response
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and part (b), Global Affairs Canada has not purchased any X-ray scanners from Nuctech.
With regard to part (c), information on contracts worth more than $10,000 for the time period requested is available under proactive disclosure on the Open Government site at: https://open.canada.ca.
With regard to part (d), Deloitte was mandated to conduct a review of Global Affairs Canada’s procurement process for security equipment, including a review of the go-forward options for the use of the recently established standing offers for security equipment and a review of the procurement options to support the future acquisition of mission equipment, including a review of the appropriateness of creating a new national security exception for security equipment.
With regard to part (e), the final versions of the review in French and English were received on November 19, 2020, and were provided to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 27, 2020. They are available at: www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/OGGO/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10994670
With regard to part (f), Global Affairs Canada has not purchased equipment from Nuctech, therefore no guarantees have been sought.

Question No. 224--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to rent increase notices issued to clients renting space in government-owned buildings during the pandemic: (a) how many rent increase notices have been issued since March 1, 2020; (b) what was the average increase in (i) percentage, (ii) dollar amount; (c) as of March 1, 2020, what was the vacancy rate in government-owned buildings for (i) retail space, (ii) other clients; and (d) what is the current vacancy rate in government-owned buildings for (i) retail space, (ii) other clients?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, here is the information with regard to rent increase notices issued to clients renting space in government-owned buildings during the pandemic. With regard to part (a), from March 1, 2020 to November 5, 2020, in Public Services and Procurement Canada-owned buildings, 42 rent increases have been issued to tenants that do not require rent relief, are currently not participating in the rent deferral program or the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance, CECRA, and are currently paying full monthly rent. There are 60 notices of rent increases as per the lease provisions that have not been issued to tenants that are currently participating in the rent deferral program or the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance, CECRA.
With regard to part (b), the average increase was 1.82% and $1,839.66. The amount increase ranged from $-905.72 to $24,650.78.
With regard to part (c), the vacancy rate in government-owned buildings as of March 1, 2020, was as follows: as of March 31, 2020, the marketable vacancy retail space was 5,600m2, which represented 6.7% of PSPC’s complete retail space of 83,000m2 within its portfolio.
For other clients, this is not applicable.
With regard to part (d), the current vacancy rate in government-owned buildings as of November 5, 2020, is as follows: as of November 1, 2020, the marketable vacant retail space is 6,300m2, which represents 7.5% of PSPC’s complete retail space of 83,800m2 within its portfolio. It should be noted that the increase in vacancy, compared to March 31, 2020, is due to leases that have ended since that time; and there was an additional 800m2 of new retail space added since March 31, 2020.
For other clients, this is not applicable.

Question No. 226--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to the Emergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations: (a) how many applications has the government received for funding; (b) what is the total amount dispersed by the fund since its official formation; (c) how many applications were from the constituency of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa; (d) how many applications were received from applicants in the province of Manitoba; (e) how many of the applications in (d) were successful; and (f) what are the details of all funding provided through the fund, including (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) organization type, (v) federal riding?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Canadian Heritage, or PCH, the answer to part (a) of the question is 6,143. The answer to part (b) is $390,697,000. With regard to part (c), PCH’s financial system does not capture information by federal riding. The answer to part (d) is 234. This number does not include applications from the athlete assistance program as these are disclosed on an annual basis. The answer to part (e) is 231. This number does not include successful applications from the athlete assistance program. With regard to part (f), information pertaining to grants and contributions is publicly available on the Open Canada website at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/.
With regard to the Canada Council for the Arts, the answer to part (a) of the question is 7,083. The answer to part (b) is $62,685,608, and the answer to part (c) is three. With regard to part (d), the answer is 184. The answer to part (e) is 98. With regard to part (f), disclosure of grant and prize recipients can be found at https://canadacouncil.ca/about/public-accountability/proactive-disclosure/grant-recipients.
With regard to Telefilm Canada, the answer to part (a) of the question is 665, and the answer to part (b) is $29,450,367. With regard to part (c), Telefilm Canada’s operational system does not capture information by federal riding. The answer to part (d) is 22, and the answer to part (e) is 18. With regard to part (f), information pertaining to grants and contributions can be found at https://telefilm.ca/en/transparency/proactive-disclosure/grant-contribution/reports-by-quarter.

Question No. 228--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to statistics related to federal correctional inmates since 1980: (a) how many inmates were sentenced to serve two or more life sentences; (b) of the inmates in (a), how many were granted parole, conditional release, or compassionate release; and (c) of the inmates in (b), how many reoffended while on parole, conditional release or compassionate release?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Correctional Service of Canada is unable to provide a response to this question, as doing so would involve the extraction and analysis of a significant amount of information, which cannot be completed within the given time frame.

Question No. 229--
Ms. Leona Alleslev:
With regard to information on services provided by Canada Post since October 2017 and broken down by province or territory and by month for each part of the question: (a) what was the volume of lettermail; (b) how many letters received postmarks the day they were mailed; (c) what are the Canada Post lettermail delivery time performance standards; (d) what were the average, median and mean delivery times for the lettermail; (e) what volume and percentage of the lettermail were delivered exceeding the performance standards; (f) how is the loss of lettermail determined and reported; (g) what volume and percentage of lettermail was lost; (h) what is the audit process to evaluate the security, effectiveness and timeliness of the end-to-end lettermail pickup to delivery process; and (i) how many audits were conducted?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, for the volume of letter mail, refer to the attached annex. It was not possible to provide a breakdown of the data by province and territory and month by month within the allotted time.
With regard to part (b), unless a piece of mail is tracked, Canada Post Corporation, CPC, cannot determine what is not delivered. CPC would know the volume of mail through its machines but not how much “should have” gone through the machine, i.e., inducted but not processed. Similarly, CPC would not know what was processed but not delivered.
Regarding part (c), according to the Canadian Postal Service Charter, the delivery time performance standards are two business days within a community, three business days within province and four business days between provinces.
With regard to part (d), from October 2017 to November 2020, CPC’s on-time delivery performance within the above-mentioned two, three and four business day standards was 95.4% in 2017, 93% in 2018 and 95.3% in 2019. The 2020 delivery performance is not yet available. CPC is unable to provide a breakdown of this data by province and territory and month by month within the allotted time.
Regarding part (e) of the question, the volume and percentage of letter mail delivered beyond or past CPC standards was 4.6% in 2017, 7% in 2018 and 4.7% in 2019. The 2020 performance is not yet available. CPC is unable to provide a breakdown of this data by province and territory and month by month within the allotted time.
With regard to parts (f) and (g) of the question, please refer to the answer for part (b).
Regarding part (h), security of the mail is accomplished through a number of security controls. It starts from the security of mailboxes, which were designed with security in mind and are the result of years of evolution and enhancements, from the metal used to construct the boxes to the design of the locks to secure the inducted products through the course of post. These are tested with the assistance of many key stakeholders and suppliers, engineers, as well as internal knowledge of the security environment. The mail is then brought to depots where ongoing threat, risk and vulnerability assessments are conducted. The security assessment is called a facility security index, or FSI, which is a holistic security assessment based on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police threat risk assessment approach. The process assesses not only the physical security and controls at the facility but also compliance to these controls and to security processes. As a result, an extensive report is provided to management with action plans and a follow-up audit that will be conducted for any significant deficiencies, along with proper communication plans on recommended corrective and preventive measures.
With regard to part (i) of the question, at the beginning of 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 11 FSI reviews were conducted. As these are normally focused on larger urban outlets, where there is a higher risk of COVID exposure in conducting these audits, once the pandemic began attention instead shifted to conducting rural reviews at smaller rural corporate outlets. As such audits take less time to complete than FSIs, with FSIs taking typically a week and rural reviews being completed within a day, more reviews could be conducted, with more than 226 completed so far. In comparison, 39 FSI reviews were completed throughout 2019, 25 in 2018, and 50 in 2017, which was when the process was implemented.

Question No. 231--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the government’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced by its departments and, specifically for the Department of National Defence (DND): (a) what are the current greenhouse gas reduction targets for DND; (b) what is DND's current status with meeting those targets; (c) have the greenhouse gas impacts of replacing the CF-18 fighter jets been taken into account in the department’s gas reduction targets and plans; (d) have greenhouse gas impacts been incorporated into the bidding and selection process for new fighter jets; and (e) what action is the government taking to ensure the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the new fighter jets are mitigated in their operation and maintenance?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, National Defence is taking concrete steps to reduce its carbon footprint in its real property and its fleets. This includes greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures such as energy performance contracts at defence installations across the country, clean energy purchases and improved energy management.
National Defence’s continued investments to upgrade and replace critical National Defence infrastructure and fleets will contribute to the government’s efforts to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
With regard to part (a) of the question, when “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, Canada’s defence policy, was released in 2017, National Defence’s goal was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by 2030. More recently, National Defence, in its 2020-23 defence energy and environment strategy, has adopted a more ambitious target that aligns with the Government of Canada’s greening government strategy. This is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its real property and commercial light-duty fleets, where feasible, by 40% from 2005 levels by 2025, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
Separate from its real property and commercial light-duty fleets, National Defence is also committed to bringing emissions from its national safety and security operations fleets to net zero by 2050, in accordance with the Government of Canada’s updated greening government strategy. For the national safety and security fleet, which is comprised of Canadian Armed Forces aircraft, marine vessels and tactical land vehicles, the 2050 target will consider the use of environmentally friendly technologies and low-carbon fuels when available, affordable and operationally feasible.
With regard to part (b), National Defence’s 2016-19 defence energy and environment strategy committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by 2030. As of March 31, 2020, National Defence has reduced its emissions from its real property and commercial light-duty vehicles fleets by 31% below 2005 levels and is on track to reach the 40% reduction target by 2025, a full five years ahead of the original schedule.
Greenhouse gas emissions from National Defence’s national safety and security fleet operations, however, are 11% above 2005 levels as of March 31, 2020. These emissions are tied to Canadian Armed Forces activities required to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. These emissions will vary over time, as the number of times that the CAF is deployed will impact the amount of emissions that are emitted.
National Defence is committed to ensuring its activities are conducted in a sustainable manner without compromising the safety and security of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
As outlined in the 2020-23 defence energy and environment strategy, National Defence is committed to exploring the use of alternative energy options in national safety and security-related fleet operations. Canada is leading the path in this area as one of the few countries making a commitment to manage its military fleet in a sustainable manner.
Regarding parts (c) and (d) of the question, through Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”¸ National Defence commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions while remaining operationally effective. The defence energy and environment strategy commits the department to make every effort to consider environmental and energy implications of its purchase decisions, operations and asset management.
Under this strategy, all new military equipment procured is required to consider energy efficiency to reduce overall operating costs and environmental impacts.
As part of the future fighter capability project’s life-cycle cost evaluation process, aircraft that have lower fuel consumption are favoured, which affects the greenhouse gas emissions of the aircraft. It is anticipated that newer propulsion systems technology in future fighter aircraft may result in reducing greenhouse gas emissions of the new aircraft fleet.
National Defence is also investigating the use of alternative fuels with a reduced carbon footprint for its fleets.
With regard to part (e), as the future fighter aircraft will be replacing an existing capability, the overall impacts on greenhouse gas emissions are anticipated to be similar to those generated by the existing CF-18 fleet. However, operational emissions may be reduced as a result of newer propulsion systems technology in the future fighter aircraft. The level of emissions will also depend upon how often these aircraft are used.
National Defence is also working to reduce the emissions for maintenance activities by improving maintenance practices and facilities. The Bagotville and Cold Lake facilities that will house the future fighter aircraft will be designed and constructed to increase energy efficiency wherever possible.
National Defence is committed to demonstrating leadership in environmental and energy sustainability and will continue to strive to meet its obligation to manage its assets and operations efficiently.

Question No. 235--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-35, which stated that the government provided "up to $30 million to small and medium-sized forest sector firms" during the pandemic: (a) which firms received the funding; (b) how much did each firm receive; and (c) on what date did each firm receive its payment from the government?
Response
Mr. Paul Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, following the announcement by the Minister of Natural Resources on July 10, 2020, Natural Resources Canada consulted stakeholders and finalized the implementation plan for this initiative. This program will provide up to $30 million to small and medium-sized forest sector operations to offset costs associated with the implementation of COVID-19 health and safety measures.
With regard to part (b), contribution agreements with participating provinces and territories have advanced, with most expected to be completed in early January. Provinces and territories were allocated base-level funding, supplemented by a top-up increment that is based on a combination of each jurisdiction’s share of total forest sector employment and each jurisdiction’s share of total trees planted. Once agreements are in place, participating jurisdictions will compile and submit claims for reimbursement to the federal government. Once claims are validated and paid, this will enable provinces and territories to reimburse eligible small and medium-sized forest sector businesses, likely starting in early 2021.
With regard to part (c), eligible costs will have been incurred by companies between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Payments will be made on a retroactive basis and participating jurisdictions will report which firms received support. As this program is ongoing, there is insufficient information available to answer this question.

Question No. 236--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to the government's commitment to modernize the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD): (a) how much funding has been committed toward modernizing NORAD; and (b) what is the breakdown of the funding commitment by year for each of the next five years?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as outlined in Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, National Defence is committed to continental defence and to the protection of North America. This includes commitments to ensure that the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, is modernized to meet existing and future threats and challenges.
In response to part (a), National Defence is currently examining a wide range of capability requirements and potential investment opportunities with regard to NORAD modernization. This includes examining the best way to fulfill the direction in the Minister of National Defence’s mandate letter regarding the renewal of the North Warning System.
Delivering on these commitments will build on the significant investments in core continental defence capabilities already included in “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. These include the commitments to acquire six Arctic and offshore patrol ships, 88 future fighter aircraft, remotely piloted systems for enhanced surveillance capabilities, and improved space capabilities for Arctic surveillance and communications.
In response to part (b), Funding and timelines specifically earmarked for the modernization of NORAD have yet to be determined. These decisions will take into consideration the full range of threats and challenges facing Canada and North America and will be informed through consultations with the new administration in the United States.
Investments will be informed by, and build on, the multi-year, $133-million programmed investment by Defence Research and Development Canada’s all-domain situational awareness, ADSA, S&T program, which is now close to completion. This S&T program explored enhanced domain awareness of air, maritime surface, and maritime subsurface approaches to Canada and North America, with a focus on the Arctic. The highly successful ADSA S&T program made significant progress in several key areas, including over-the-horizon radar, which could support a future system of systems against evolving threats. The knowledge gained from the ADSA S&T program will inform scientific advice for the modernization and augmentation of the North Warning System capability as part of such a system of systems.

Question No. 238--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
With regard to the government’s response to the request or pending request from the mayor of Vancouver to decriminalize a number of illegal drugs, including cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth, within the city: (a) will the government allow cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth to be decriminalized within the city; and (b) does the Prime Minister still hold the position that “[w]e’re not looking at full decriminalization at all”, which he stated in an interview with Global News that aired on September 24, 2019?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada’s approach to substance use issues has been comprehensive and collaborative, guided by our federal drug strategy—the Canadian drugs and substances strategy (CDSS), introduced in late 2016. The CDSS takes a public health-focused approach and lays out our framework for evidence-based actions to reduce the harms associated with substance use in Canada. It includes four key pillars—prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and enforcement.
Since 2016, the Government of Canada has taken urgent action to address the overdose crisis through significant federal investments of over $600 million, as well as legislative and regulatory action. This includes working with provinces and territories to improve access to harm reduction services such as supervised consumption sites, increase access to pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to the illegal contaminated supply, i.e., a safer supply, raise awareness of the risks of opioids, and remove barriers to treatment, including stigma. More recently, to build on funding provided in budget 2018 and budget 2019, the government provided an additional $66 million over two years, starting in 2020-21, to support community-based organizations responding to substance use issues, including to help them provide front-line services in a COVID-19 context.
The Government of Canada recognizes that in many regions of the country the COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating long-standing challenges regarding substance use and the overdose crisis, with some communities now reporting record high numbers of overdose deaths, hospitalizations, and emergency medical service calls. To help address these challenges, the Government of Canada has taken actions to implement important measures to enable the health system to better meet the needs of people with substance use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, we have issued class exemptions to pharmacists and eased restrictions on the transportation of controlled substances to make it easier for people to access the medications they need during the COVID-19 pandemic while following public health advice, such as physical distancing. We have also made it easier for overdose prevention sites to be established rapidly in temporary community shelters and other locations. In addition, through Health Canada’s substance use and addictions program, the Government of Canada is providing funding to support 11 projects in providing a flexible safer supply of pharmaceutical-grade medications for people with opioid use disorder in British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick. These investments will help provide pathways to care and treatment.
The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the ongoing overdose crisis. We have lost too many Canadians to overdose, and all levels of government must redouble our efforts to save lives. For example, the federal government has been working with the Government of British Columbia and Mayor Stewart on options that respond to their local and regional needs, guided by the recommendations of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. We are reviewing the City of Vancouver’s request to address criminal penalties for simple possession of small amounts of controlled substances, and the Government of Canada will continue work to get Canadians who use substances the support they need.
The Government of Canada will continue to encourage the formation of partnerships between law enforcement and health and social services to help divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and towards appropriate health services and social supports. For example, in May 2017, the Government of Canada passed the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act. This act provides some legal protection for individuals who seek emergency help during an overdose. The Government of Canada in also funding a three-year project in Peterborough, Ontario, to develop a multi-sector response, with a team dedicated to caring for people at risk of experiencing overdoses, in order to direct people away from the justice system and into care. Further, on August 18, 2020, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada issued guidance to prosecutors directing that alternatives to prosecution should be considered for simple possession offences, except when there are serious mitigating circumstances. This policy is available at https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p5/ch13.html.
The overdose crisis is a complex public health issue, but the Government of Canada is committed to working closely with provinces, territories, and key stakeholders to address substance use issues and to ensure that people who use drugs have the support they need.

Question No. 242--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to directives given by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission since January 1, 2016: what directives have been given and what was the date of each directive?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has the power to issue directives to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, exclusively under subsection 23(3) of the Broadcasting Act. Moreover, directives under subsection 23(3) pertain exclusively to conditions imposed by the CRTC to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the corporation, in consideration of those conditions. The minister has not issued any directive under that section since January 1, 2016.
However, the Governor in Council, GiC, may issue directions to the CRTC under subsections 7(1), 26(1) and 27(1) of the act. The GiC may also request the CRTC to “hold hearings or make reports on any matter within the jurisdiction of the [CRTC]” under subsection 15(1) of the act.
Since January 1, 2016, the GiC requested one report under subsection 15(1) of the act. The request, dated September 22, 2017, P.C. 2017-1195, was to report to the GiC no later than June 1, 2018 in regard to the following matters: a) the distribution model or models of programming that are likely to exist in the future; b) how and through whom Canadians will access that programming; c) the extent to which these models will ensure a vibrant domestic market that is capable of supporting the continued creation, production and distribution of Canadian programming, in both official languages, including original entertainment and information programming.
Since 2016, the GiC has issued one direction to the CRTC under subsection 27(1). The directive, dated April 3, 2020, P.C. 2020-231, was in respect of the implementation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA.
Other than the aforementioned two matters, the GiC has not issued any directions to the CRTC during the time frame in question, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage has not issued any directives to the CRTC during the same period.

Question No. 250--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-6, regarding loans made under the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA): (a) what specific types of businesses are classified as "other services", and what are examples of such businesses; (b) what specific types of businesses are classified as "public administration", and what are examples of such businesses; and (c) did any of the CEBA loans classified as "public administration" go toward any province, territory, municipality, or other level of government and, if so, what are the details of any such loans, including (i) amount, (ii) recipient?
Response
Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Export Development Canada, EDC, is proud to be part of the Government of Canada’s response to COVID-19. EDC collaborated in the design of the Canada emergency business account, CEBA, and works to deliver the program by providing support to Canadian financial institutions through funding, validation checks and administration. EDC will continue with current stimulus initiatives, as well as work to identify new opportunities, along with our government partners, to meet the evolving needs of Canadian companies.
In response to (a), Canada emergency business account or CEBA data, as it relates to industry, is reported in the Standard Industrial Classification, SIC, or the North American Industry Classification System, NAICS, when available and provided by the financial institutions. “Other services” as reported in Order Paper question Q-6 includes the following SIC and NAICS classifications.
SIC code R, “Other Service Industries” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=53446&CVD=53447&CPV=R&CST=01011980&CLV=1&MLV=4, includes the following subsectors: amusement and recreational service industries, personal and household service industries, membership organization industries, other service industries.
NAICS code 71, “Arts, Entertainment & Recreation” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=307532&CVD=307533&CPV=71&CST=01012017&CLV=1&MLV=5, includes the following subsectors: performing arts, spectator sports and related industries; heritage institutions; amusement, gambling and recreation industries.
NAICS code 81, “Other services (except public administration)” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1181553&CVD=1181554&CPV=81&CST=01012017&CLV=1&MLV=5, includes the following subsectors: repair and maintenance; personal and laundry services; religious, grant-making, civic and professional and similar organizations; private households.
Details identifying a specific recipient cannot be provided without prior consent from the financial institution and the borrower. CEBA is administered by EDC, who is working closely with Canadian financial institutions to deliver these loans to qualifying businesses.
In response to (b), CEBA data as it relates to industry is reported in SIC or NAICS, when available and provided by the financial institutions. “Public administration” as reported in Order Paper question Q-6 includes the following SIC and NAICS classifications.
SIC code N, “Government Service Industries” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=53446&CVD=53447&CPV=N&CST=01011980&CLV=1&MLV=4, includes the following subsectors: federal government service industries, provincial and territorial government service industries, local government service industries, international and other extra-territorial government service industries.
NAICS code 91, “Public Administration” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1181553&CVD=1181554&CPV=91&CST=01012017&CLV=1&MLV=5, includes the following subsectors: federal government public administration; provincial and territorial public administration; local, municipal and regional public administration; aboriginal public administration; international and other extra-territorial public administration.
Details identifying a specific recipient cannot be provided without prior consent from the financial institution and the borrower. CEBA is administered by EDC, who is working closely with Canadian financial institutions to deliver these loans to qualifying businesses.
In response to (c), details identifying a specific recipient cannot be provided without prior consent from the financial institution and the borrower. CEBA is administered by EDC, who is working closely with Canadian financial institutions to deliver these loans to qualifying businesses.
As per the requirements of the program set out by the Government of Canada and found on the CEBA website, https://ceba-cuec.ca/, when applying for a CEBA loan the borrower needs to confirm that it is not a government organization or body, or an entity wholly owned by a government organization or body; that it is not a non-profit organization, registered charity, union, or a fraternal benefit society or order, or an entity owned by such an organization, unless the entity is actively carrying on a business in Canada, including a related business in the case of a registered charity, that earns revenue from the regular supply of property/goods or services; that it is not an entity owned by any federal member of Parliament or senator; that it does not promote violence, incite hatred or discriminate on the basis of sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, colour, race, ethnic or national origin, religion, age, or mental or physical disability, contrary to applicable laws.

Question No. 254--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the economic impact of the government's Clean Fuel Standard: (a) did the government do any analysis on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on Saskatchewan's economy and, if so, what are the details and findings of the analysis; (b) did the government do any analysis on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on Saskatchewan's oil and gas industry and, if so, what are the details and findings of the analysis; (c) did the government do any analysis on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on Saskatchewan's agricultural sector and, if so, what are the details and findings of the analysis; and (d) has Farm Credit Canada done any analysis or projections on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on farm incomes and, if so, what are the details and findings?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the proposed clean fuel standard regulations were published in Canada Gazette, part I, on December 19, along with the regulatory impact assessment statement, which includes provincial, regional, and sectoral considerations. These documents can be found at http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2020/2020-12-19/html/reg2-eng.html.

Question No. 257--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Deloitte report on contracts with Chinese-based companies, referenced by Global Affairs Canada at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 18, 2020: (a) what was the date that the report was commissioned; (b) what was the date that the report was delivered; (c) what was the final cost of the report; (d) what was the scope of the report; (e) what was the title of the report; (f) what were the findings or conclusions of the report; and (g) was the report tendered competitively and, if not, why not?
Response
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. In response to (a), the report was commissioned on August 10, 2020.
In response to (b), the report was delivered on November 19, 2020.
In response to (c), information on contracts worth more than $10,000 for the time period requested is available under “Proactive disclosure” on the Open Government site at https://open.canada.ca.
In response to (d), Deloitte was mandated to conduct a review of Global Affairs Canada’s procurement process for security equipment, including a review of the go-forward options for the use of the recently established standing offers for security equipment and a review of the procurement options to support the future acquisition of mission equipment, including a review of the appropriateness of creating a new national security exception for security equipment.
In response to (e), the title was “Global Affairs Canada: Security Equipment Procurement Review”.
In response to (f), Deloitte conducted an independent review of the procurement process for security equipment. The review confirms that officials followed all the rules and policies related to security equipment and that there were opportunities for improvements in the areas of increased integration of security in the materiel management life cycle, broader consultation throughout the procurement process for security equipment and additional guidance with respect to publishing technical requirements. Global Affairs Canada’s revised procurement approach, currently under development with Public Services and Procurement Canada, will integrate these recommendations and will include consultations with security experts and possibly creating a national security exception to limit solicitations to trusted suppliers with the required security clearances.
In response to (g), the report was tendered competitively.

Question No. 260--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Canada's emergency wage subsidy since its creation, broken down by province: (a) which enterprises have applied for the subsidy; (b) of the enterprises in (a), which enterprises have been eligible for the subsidy; and (c) what is the reason for refusal for each of the enterprises that have not been deemed eligible?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what follows is the response from the CRA as of November 25, 2020, the date of the question. With regard to parts (a), (b) and (c), the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2, S.C. 2020, c. 6, notes that CEWS is available to qualifying entities, sets out definitions for the terms that apply to the emergency wage subsidy and provides definitions of both eligible employees and qualifying entities. The CRA’s role is to administer legislation as it has been approved by Parliament and assented to by the Crown.
While this legislation amends the Income Tax Act, affording discretion to make public the name of any person or partnership that makes an application for CEWS, it does not permit the publication of specific CEWS application information, including province or reason for denial in the manner requested in the question.
As of November 25, 2020, a public registry of CEWS recipients was in development. Once it is available on Canada.ca at https://www.canada.ca/ en/revenue-agency/services /subsidy/emergency- wage-subsidy.html, it will allow Canadians to identify employers benefitting from the CEWS.
As of November 25, 2020, though the CRA has begun a preliminary small-scale CEWS post-payment audit program, it has not yet compiled statistics on reasons for denying claims. Therefore, the CRA cannot answer the question in the manner requested.

Question No. 261--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) program, since its inception: (a) what is the total amount paid out through the program; (b) how many individual companies have received payments, broken down by (i) country of physical address, (ii) country of mailing address, (iii) country of the bank account the funds were deposited into; (c) for all of the companies in (b) that are located in Canada, what is the breakdown down by (i) province or territory, (ii) municipality; (d) how many audits have been conducted of companies receiving CEWS; and (e) for the audits in (d), how many have found that funding has been spent outside of Canada?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA as of November 26, 2020, the date of the question. The COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2, S.C. 2020, c. 6, notes that Canada emergency wage subsidy, CEWS, is available to qualifying entities, sets out definitions for the terms that apply to the emergency wage subsidy and provides definitions of both eligible employees and qualifying entities. The CRA’s role is to administer legislation as it has been approved by Parliament and assented to by the Crown.
With regard to part (a), financial transactional data regarding amounts “paid out” and “received” as suggested in the question is not available in the manner requested. Rather, general statistical information is available on Canada.ca regarding the CEWS, including total approved applications, all approved applications by value, the number of applications received and the dollar value of subsidies paid. This information can be found under “Claims to date - Canada emergency wage subsidy (CEWS)” at https://www.canada.ca/en /revenue-agency/services/ subsidy/emergency-wage- subsidy/cews-statistics.html.
With regard to parts (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (b)(iii), information is not captured in the manner requested in the question.
With regard to parts (c)(i) and (c)(ii), financial transactional data regarding amounts paid out and received, as suggested in the question, is not available in the manner requested. Rather, general statistical data on CEWS claims providing the total approved claims broken down by province/territory where applicant resides, industry sector and size of applicant is available on the Canada.ca website at https://www.canada.ca /en/revenue-agency/services/ subsidy/emergency-wage- subsidy/cews-statistics/ stats-detailed.html and can be found under “CEWS claims – detailed data”. Information is not available by municipality.
With regard to part (d), as of November 26, 2020, the date of the question, the CRA had not launched its CEWS post-payment audit program.
However, the CRA did launch a small scale CEWS post-payment audit research project that targets a limited sample. The intent of this pilot project is not only to learn about audit and verification challenges, including the types of non-compliance and the levels of compliance with respect to this benefit program, but also about conducting compliance activities during the COVID-19 pandemic and, by extension, other global crises. The CRA can confirm that as part of this research project, as of November 26, 2020, the CRA has contacted over 700 taxpayers and business in many ranges.
With regard to part (e), since the CRA has not yet launched the full CEWS post payment audit program, the CRA is not yet tracking audit results in the manner requested in the above-noted question.

Question No. 269--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the announcement made by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs in Barrie, Ontario, on October 9, 2019, promising a four-year, $40 million funding commitment for Lake Simcoe: (a) how much of the $40 million commitment was or will be delivered in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021, (iv) 2022, (v) 2023; and (b) what are the details of all funding actually delivered since October 21, 2019, as part of the commitment, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, contained in the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s mandate letter is a commitment to develop further protections for and take active steps in the cleanup of the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Simcoe and other large lakes.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is currently exploring approaches to further protect and restore vital freshwater ecosystems to support the delivery of the minister’s freshwater-related mandate commitments, including Lake Simcoe.

Question No. 272--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to Health Canada’s approval of the first HIV self-test kits for use in Canada and the government’s promise to distribute 60,000 of these self-test kits: (a) how and through what program will the government distribute these test kits; (b) how many of the 60,000 self-test kits will be designated for distribution to communities who face greater barriers to accessing testing and in particular to guarantee access to Indigenous, racialized and low income people, and those who live in rural and northern communities; and (c) what are the long-term plans to ensure continued broad and free distribution to those most at risk?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Public Health Agency of Canada itself does not undertake the distribution of self-test kits, as this does not fall under its jurisdiction. The REACH/MAP Centre initiative will be distributing test kits. There will be 60,000 self-tests kits made available through an implementation science program led by the REACH/MAP Centre initiative at St. Michael’s Hospital. This initiative was made possible through funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, along with other sources.
The REACH/MAP Centre initiative is working with two key community-based organizations to support access to and distribution of 60,000 self-test kits across Canada, with peer navigation services free of charge and a telehealth platform. The launch of this program is expected to begin on January 1, 2021. Self-test kits will be distributed throughout the country via the Community-Based Research Centre, CBRC, for gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirit and queer men, GBT2Q; and Women’s Health in Women’s Hands, WHIWH, will distribute to racialized women from the African, Black, Caribbean, Latin American and South Asian communities.
With regard to (b), as noted above, the CBRC and WHIWH, two key community-based organizations involved in the REACH/MAP Centre initiative, have networks throughout Canada and are recognized for engaging with indigenous, racialized and low-income people. Distribution will be possible through mail, thus allowing reach to those who live in rural and northern communities.
With regard to (c), the distribution of self-test kits and the provision of associated services falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments.

Question No. 274--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regards to the role of First Nations fisheries and reconciliation: (a) how many meetings or briefings has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had regarding reconciliation since November 20, 2019; and (b) what are the details of all meetings in (a), including the (i) date, (ii) attendees, (iii) location, (iv) purpose of the meeting or briefing?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, implementing the Marshall decision is critical to the work of reconciliation, and it is a priority of our government. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard has met and continues to meet on a regular basis with first nations leadership and commercial industry representatives. Our government is working with communities to discuss their fishery plans and reach agreements. Together we will ensure that the treaty right to pursue a moderate livelihood is implemented in a way that ensures safe, orderly and sustainable fishing. Our goal is, and always has been, to develop a strong, stable and productive fishery for the benefit of everyone involved.
Information regarding briefings is proactively disclosed in accordance with the Access to Information Act and can be found at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/bn/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=bn-search-orgs=Fisheries%20and%20Oceans%20Canada.

Question No. 278--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the national security review of the proposed takeover of TMAC Resources Inc. by Shandong Gold Mining Co. Ltd.: (a) when was the review ordered; (b) when will the review commence; (c) when is the review expected to be completed; (d) when will the government make a decision on the proposed takeover; and (e) has the government received any communication from the Chinese government advocating for the approval of the takeover and, if so, what are the details of any such communication?
Response
Mr. Ali Ehsassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (Innovation and Industry), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, under the Investment Canada Act, all foreign investments are subject to a national security review. Canada remains open to investments that create jobs, growth, access to global trade and value chains, and long-term prosperity for Canadians, while protecting Canada’s national security interests. Reviews are conducted on a case-by-case basis as part of a rigorous and evidence-based process.
With regard to the proposed investment, Innovation, Science and Economic Development can confirm that on October 15, 2020, TMAC publicly announced that an order for the national security review of the investment under the act was made by the Governor in Council and that on November 27, 2020, TMAC announced that the national security review of the investment was extended for a further period of up to 45 days.
Further details of specific transactions under review are subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Investment Canada Act.

Question No. 279--
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regard to the Employment Insurance fund: (a) what was the balance of the fund as of March 1, 2020; (b) what is the current balance of the fund; (c) how much has been withdrawn from the fund for Employment Insurance payments since March 1, 2020; and (d) how much has been withdrawn from the fund for other programs such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit since March 1, 2020, broken down by program?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the balance of the fund as of March 1, 2020, is not available. However, the audited financial statements of the employment insurance operating account were prepared for the year ended March 31, 2020. These statements were tabled in the House of Commons as part of the Public Accounts of Canada, section 4, consolidated accounts, as at March 31, 2020. Financial information related to measures in response to the Canada emergency response benefit is captured separately in these statements: https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2020/pdf/2020-vol1-eng.pdf
With regard to (b), the current balance of the account is not available, as the fiscal year is still in progress. The audited financial statements will present the balance of the fund for the year ending March 31, 2021.
With regard to (c), the total benefits and support measures charged to the employment insurance operating account since March 1, 2020, are not available, as the fiscal year is still in progress. The total benefits and support measures charged to the employment insurance operating account for the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, will be presented in the audited financial statements for the year ending on March 31, 2021.
With regard to (d), the total benefits and support measures charged to the employment insurance operating account since March 1, 2020, are not available, as the fiscal year is still in progress. As per section 153.111 of the Employment Insurance Act, the employment insurance operating account will be credited by an amount determined by the Minister of Finance that corresponds to the total cost of the employment insurance emergency response benefit under this act, including all costs related to the benefit and its administration. We can confirm that this is the only Canada emergency response benefit that will be paid but later funded by the consolidated revenue fund out of the employment insurance operating account, as seen at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.6/page-39.html#h-1261609.

Question No. 280--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the impact of the changes to the broadcasting industry proposed in Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) does the government have a projection of what the Canadian media market will look like in five years without the changes in Bill C-10; (b) does the government have a projection of what the Canadian media market will look like in five years with the changes in Bill C-10; (c) what are the government's projections related to the scenarios in (a) and (b); and (d) if the government does not have the projections in (a) or (b), then on what basis are the changes proposed in Bill C-10 being made?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), yes, the government has projections of what Canadian production will look like in five years without Bill C-10.
With regard to (b), yes, the government has projections of what future contributions to Canadian content will look like in five years with the changes in Bill C-10. With regard to (c), a major goal of Bill C-10 is to ensure that all broadcasters, including Internet giants, contribute in an appropriate manner to the Canadian broadcasting system. The bill gives the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission, CRTC, the tools it needs to effectively regulate online broadcasters. To that end, the government prepared estimates of what Canadian content production would look like in both a scenario without Bill C-10, and with the inclusion of online broadcasters in the Canadian regulatory framework after the adoption of the measures in Bill C-10.
In further response to (a), with regard to a business-as-usual projection of future production volumes for Canadian television content, internal PCH projections find that without Bill C-10, falling commercial broadcasting revenues are expected to lead to a decline in the production of Canadian television content of around $1 billion by 2023 when compared with 2018. The projected decline would represent a 34 per cent decrease in production volume between 2018 and 2023.
This figure relates to total volume of Canadian television production, i.e., the total budgets of all television productions that meet the definition for “Canadian content” in a given year. In addition to Canadian television broadcasters, there are many other sources of financing for television production in Canada, including the Canada media fund, foreign financing, Canadian distributors and federal or provincial tax credits. Statistical analysis of historical data for 2012 to 2018 from multiple sources was used to create these projections. Statistical relationships between broadcasting revenues and production were determined and applied to arrive at projections for production.
In further response to (b), with regard to the projection of Bill C-10’s impact on future contributions to Canadian audio and audiovisual content, internal PCH estimates find that if the CRTC requires online broadcasters to contribute to Canadian content at a similar rate as traditional broadcasters, online broadcasters’ contributions to Canadian music and stories could amount to as much as $830 million annually by 2023.
This figure relates to total regulatory requirements imposed by the CRTC on broadcasters to contribute to Canadian content and creators, rather than total volume of Canadian production, which relates to producers’ spending on Canadian content, drawing from multiple sources of financing. The contributions of online players would result in total contributions to Canadian content and creators in 2023 being 35 per cent higher than in a scenario where traditional broadcasters alone spend on Canadian content.
There are two main sources of uncertainty in this estimate of Canadian content funding. Firstly, since online broadcasters typically do not provide data to the CRTC or publicly disclose their revenues, projections were prepared based on estimates of online revenues and historical trends in those estimates. Secondly, after holding public hearings, the CRTC may impose regulatory requirements on online and/or traditional broadcasters that vary from its current practices. This could significantly change the number above, which is based on online broadcasters contributing at similar levels as traditional broadcasters do now.
It is important to note that $830 million in contributions from online players does not equate to an $830 million increase in production volume, e.g., the effect will not make the $1 billion loss a $170 million loss. In practice the impact on production volume may be more or less than $830 million, depending on the extent of any “spillover effects” and several other factors that cannot be estimated with available data.
With regard to (d), it is not applicable.

Question No. 283--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the section on page 116 of the Fall Economic Statement 2020, which reads, "CRA will allow employees working from home in 2020 due to COVID-19 with modest expenses to claim up to $400, based on the amount of time working from home": (a) how many Canadians does the government project will be eligible for the deduction; (b) what is the required amount of time working from home to be eligible for the full $400 deduction; (c) what is the required amount of time working from home to be eligible for a deduction less than $400, and what is the formula used to calculate the eligible deduction amount; and (d) what is the specific eligibility criteria to determine if someone who worked from home is eligible for this new deduction, as opposed to the traditional work from home deductions for individuals who worked from home prior to the pandemic?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response from the CRA is as follows. With regard to part (a), the CRA cannot respond in the manner requested as it does not have information on the projected number of Canadians who will be eligible for the deduction.
With regard to part (b), if an employee worked more than 50% of the time from home for a period of at least four consecutive weeks in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they can claim $2 for each day they worked from home during that period. They can then also claim any additional days they worked at home in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The maximum amount of $400 would be achieved at 200 days working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
With regard to part (c), if an employee worked more than 50% of the time from home for a period of at least four consecutive weeks in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they can claim $2 for each day they worked from home during that period. They can then also claim any additional days they worked at home in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The formula to calculate the deduction is $2 x the total number of days the employee worked from home in 2020 due to COVID-19, to a maximum of $400.
With regard to part (d), the deduction for home office expenses itself is not new. Rather, the CRA has introduced a new temporary flat rate method to simplify claiming the deduction for the 2020 tax year. However, employees can still choose to use the existing detailed method if they have larger claims. The eligibility criteria to use the new method are as follows: they worked from home in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic; they worked more than 50% of the time from home for a period of at least four consecutive weeks in 2020; they are only claiming home office expenses and are not claiming any other employment expenses; their employer did not reimburse them for all of their home office expenses.

Question No. 290--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the government’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution plan for Indigenous and remote communities: (a) what is the government’s specific plan for vaccine distribution; (b) during which month is each community projected to receive enough doses of the vaccine to inoculate the population; and (c) how will the vaccine be delivered or made available to those living in the most extreme remote communities, including those where traditional transportation methods may not be readily available?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, and its Special Operating Agency, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, are concerned, the response is as follows. With regard to (a), Indigenous Services Canada is working with the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, and the National Operations Centre for COVID Vaccine Logistics, and provinces and territories to plan and implement vaccine distribution to all indigenous populations. According to the most recent guidance of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, indigenous peoples have been identified as a first priority population for receiving the vaccine. For decades, indigenous peoples have been neglected and subjected to systemic discrimination in Canada’s health care institutions. This historic and continued discrimination has resulted in an understandable mistrust in Canada’s health care systems. We will continue to work with all partners, including provinces and territories, to ensure cultural safety and respect for first nations, Inuit and Métis when administering the COVID-19 vaccine.
Further sequencing recommendations will be made based on considerations of ethics, equity, feasibility and acceptability, such as the clinical characteristics of the vaccines and the exact timing of supply. Allocations of vaccines and their rollout will be informed by NACI advice, with outreach and collaboration with indigenous partners.
With regard to (b), as of December 23, 2020, Pfizer and Moderna are the only vaccine candidates to have received authorization from Health Canada and the first shipments of these vaccines have been received at various locations and are being administered to priority populations. COVID-19 vaccines will be distributed in Canada in a phased manner, and it is anticipated that supply will begin to meet demand over the course of 2021. The quantity and schedule of availability of vaccines will be the subject of ongoing discussion with provinces and territories who will manage rollout and delivery. The following webpage shows the total vaccine distribution amounts by province and territory, and its updated weekly: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks/covid-19-vaccine-treatment/vaccine-rollout.html#a4
With regard to (c), given the varying storage requirements of different vaccine candidates, planning is under way to determine the best way to safely deliver vaccines to remote communities. Efforts to support coordinated planning include an Indigenous Services-led COVID-19 vaccine planning working group with regional representatives, indigenous partners, PHAC, and provincial/territorial representatives.
Provinces and territories receive an allocation of the federally procured COVID-19 vaccine and are responsible for allocating the vaccine to all of those within their jurisdiction, including first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. Indigenous Services Canada is working with partners to advocate for the prioritization for of first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and to support the planning and logistics. ISC will support vaccine distribution capacity in communities if needed.

Question No. 291--
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to page 25 of the Liberal Party of Canada election platform, which stated that “we will merge existing financial and advisory services currently scattered between several agencies into Farm Credit Canada (FCC)”: (a) what specific action, if any, has been taken since the 2019 election related to the commitment; (b) which specific entities and services will be merged into FCC; (c) as a result of this merger, how many jobs are expected to be (i) eliminated, (ii) transferred to FCC, broken down by entity; and (d) what is the timeline for this merger, including a timeline of when each entity merged into FCC will wind down their own separate operations, if applicable?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in early 2020, the government began analyzing the platform commitment referenced by the member of Parliament for Regina-Wascana in Q-291 on December 3, 2020, with respect to Farm Credit Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had been in the process of undertaking an environmental scan of the agricultural financial lending situation in Canada, including agriculture and agri-food-sector-related financial products and services, including those offered by FCC. An approach to implementing this commitment was being developed in alignment with the mandate letter for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This work was put on hold with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

Question No. 298--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the design and implementation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s $10 billion growth plan announced on October 1, 2020: (a) were contracts awarded to private suppliers and, if so, how many; (b) what are the details of each of the contracts awarded in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final contract amount, (v) supplier, (vi) country of the supplier?
Response
Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the design and implementation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s $10-billion growth plan announced on October 1, 2020, and contracts awarded to private suppliers, Infrastructure Canada has nothing to report.

Question No. 299--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and spending related to the “Panama Papers” and “Paradise Papers”: (a) were contracts awarded to private-sector suppliers, and, if so, how many; and (b) what are the details for each of the contracts in (a), including the (i) contract award date, (ii) description of the goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final amount of the contract, (v) supplier, (vi) country of the supplier?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, the CRA did not award any contracts related to the “Panama Papers” and “Paradise Papers” to private sector suppliers for the period of December 1, 2019, to December 4, 2020, the date of the question.

Question No. 309--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the Emergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations: (a) what is the total amount dispersed through the fund since March 1, 2020; (b) what are the details of funding provided through the fund, including the (i) recipient, (ii) location of the recipient, (iii) amount?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Canadian Heritage and (a), the answer is $390,697,000. With regard to (b), information pertaining to grants and contributions is publicly available on the Open Canada website at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=&gc-search-orgs=Canadian%20Heritage This website excludes awards provided by the athlete assistance program, as these are disclosed on an annual basis, at the conclusion of each fiscal year.
With regard to the Canada Council for the Arts and (a), the answer is $62,685,608. With regard to (b), disclosure of grant and prize recipients can be found at https://canadacouncil.ca/about/public-accountability/proactive-disclosure/grant-recipients/recipients-2017-present?form=submitted&page=1&year=all&discipline=Strategic+Funds&program=COVID-19+Emergency+Support+Fund&recipient=&province=all&city=&area=all&riding=all&Sort1=Recipient&Sort2=Recipient&Sort3=Recipient&firstfiscalyear=2017&lastfiscalyear=2147483647
With regard to Telefilm Canada and (a), the answer is $29,687,367. With regard to (b), information pertaining to grants and contributions can be found at https://telefilm.ca/en/transparency/proactive-disclosure/grant-contribution/reports-by-quarter

Question No. 311--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to Canadian diplomats and diplomatic staff suffering from symptoms associated with what is commonly known as Havana Syndrome: (a) on what date did Global Affairs Canada (GAC) first become aware that diplomats and diplomatic staff in Cuba were suffering from symptoms; (b) what specific symptoms does GAC acknowledge are associated with Havana Syndrome; (c) how many current or former diplomats, diplomatic staff, or their family members have reported experiencing symptoms; and (d) why did the government warn diplomats in 2017 not to say anything about the symptoms experienced by those stationed in Havana?
Response
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
Since the beginning of the health incidents, the health, safety and security of diplomatic staff and their families has been the top priority.
Canada’s diplomatic staff and their families have Global Affairs Canada’s full support. This has been a very distressing experience for these diplomats and their families, and the department will continue to take the necessary steps to help them.
While we are exploring all avenues, no definitive cause of the health incidents has been identified to date.
For privacy and security reasons, we cannot comment on the specifics of the ongoing investigations, individual cases, nor on specific security and briefing measures.

Question No. 332--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the decision by the government and Destination Canada to no longer fund tourism promotion related to hunting and outfitting: (a) when was the decision made; (b) who made the decision; (c) was any analysis done on the impact of such a decision on the economies of areas of Canada that rely on hunting and outfitting tourism, and, if not, why not; (d) if an analysis was conducted, what are the details, including findings; and (e) did the government or Destination Canada consult or notify the hunting and outfitting tourism industry in relation to the decision, and, if so, what are the details?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada continues to value the contribution of the hunting and outfitting sector to the Canadian tourism economy.
For the 2016-2018 period, Destination Canada received a one-time, special funding envelope of $30 million to launch a major tourism campaign in the United States. This campaign, entitled “Connecting America”, included a co-operative marketing fund where Destination Canada co-invested into its partners’ integrated U.S. marketing initiatives. Partners were invited to submit proposals for various initiatives that focused on specific activity-based markets, i.e., hunting, fishing, skiing, festivals and events, culinary. Destination Canada did not lead the creative on any of these co-op marketing initiatives.
In 2017, one initiative led by Tourism Saskatchewan for a national hunting program was submitted and approved as part of this co-op marketing fund. Destination Canada co-invested funds alongside partners Tourism Saskatchewan, Travel Manitoba and Spectacular Northwest Territories for a national program designed to generate awareness of hunting opportunities in Canada and to enable Canadian partners to gain a foothold in the hunting-focused U.S. travel industry.
Canada’s regional development agencies, RDAs, work to advance and diversify the regional economies. Through regular programming, RDAs have provided support to the hunting and outfitting industry to expand, modernize, and diversify its product offering, as well as support for marketing. To support the stabilization of the economy as a result of the impacts of COVID-19, RDAs are delivering the regional relief and recovery fund, RRRF, designed to provide liquidity support to small and medium-sized enterprises and stabilize the economy. Tourism operators in the outfitter sector are eligible recipients of the RRRF. Projects are searchable on the Open Government website: https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/

Question No. 344--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to applications received by the government for a new Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) or a new Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence (RPAL), during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what was the exact date when new applications for PALs and RPALs (i) stopped being processed during the pandemic, (ii) began being processed again; and (b) how many new (i) PAL, (ii) RPAL applications were processed between March 15, 2020, and December 1, 2020, broken down by week?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), the Canadian firearms program stopped data entry of new applications for possession and acquisition licences into the Canadian firearms information system by the central processing site the week of March 16, 2020. Chief firearms officers continued to approve applications that had already been entered into the Canadian firearms information system.
With regard to (a)(ii), the Canadian firearms program restarted the data entry of new applications for possession and acquisition licences into the Canadian firearms information system by the central processing site the week of April 13, 2020.
With regard to (b), the requested information is provided in Annex 1. Statistics for the period between March 15 and December 1, 2020, for new applications for possession and acquisition licences, non-restricted or restricted, associated to the data entry of these applications by the central processing site.
Collapse
Agricultural researchAIDS and HIVAir transportationAlbas, DanAlghabra, OmarAlleslev, LeonaArts, recreation and travelAssociate Minister of National DefenceAudits and auditorsBendayan, RachelBibeau, Marie-Claude ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 206--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the Next Generation Human Resources and Pay project: (a) what is the total projected budget for the project; (b) what are the project’s anticipated (i) start-up and implementation costs, broken down by type of expense, (ii) ongoing or yearly operating costs; and (c) what is the projected date of when the system will be implemented for each department, agency or other government entity, broken down by entity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 207--
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
With regard to the government’s reaction to measures taken by the Chinese government against those living in Hong Kong: (a) how many asylum and refugee claims have been granted, since January 1, 2019, to those who were previously living in Hong Kong; (b) how many asylum and refugee claims from individuals in Hong Kong does the government project will be received in the next 12 months; (c) has the government made contingency plans to ensure that safe return of all Canadians who wish to return, including those with dual citizenship and, if so, what are the details of such plans; and (d) what specific steps, if any, has the government taken to ensure that Canadians in Hong Kong are not arbitrarily arrested or detained under the guise of the so-called national security law?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 208--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to each contract signed by the government since March 1, 2020, with a value greater than $10 million: (a) what specific measures, if any, were taken by the government to ensure that taxpayers were getting value for money, broken down by each contract; and (b) what are the details of each contract, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services, (iv) whether or not the contract was sole-sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 211--
Mr. Scott Aitchison:
With regard to training provided to Canadian Armed Forces public affairs staff, since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total value of the contracts awarded to the companies or individuals that provided the training; and (b) what are the details of each related contract, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) type of training provided (public speaking, social media, etc.), (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 212--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to Indigenous Services Canada's provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) for Indigenous peoples in Canada since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount requested by First Nations communities and other Indigenous organizations, broken down by type of PPE (masks, face shields, etc.); (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) date of request, (ii) name of First Nations community or organization making the request, (iii) amount requested, broken down by type of PPE; and (c) what are the details of each PPE delivery provided to First Nations and other Indigenous organizations, including (i) date of delivery, (ii) recipient community or organization, (iii) amount delivered, broken down by type of PPE?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 213--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the Invest in Canada Hub: (a) since March 12, 2018, how much has been spent on hospitality or ticket purchases related to attracting foreign investment; and (b) what are the details of all expenditures in (a), including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) number of guests or tickets purchased, (iv) location, (v) vendor, (vi) description of event, (vii) number of government officials in attendance, (viii) number of guests in attendance, (ix) companies or organizations represented?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 214--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the Business Credit Availability Program (BCAP): (a) how many businesses have received loans from (i) Export Development Canada, (ii) the Business Development Bank of Canada, (iii) other sources under the BCAP program since the pandemic began; (b) how many applications for loans under the program were declined; (c) what is the total value of loans provided under the program; and (d) what were the median and average value of loans provided under the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 217--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to the Universal Broadband Fund: (a) how many applications has the government received for funding; (b) what is the total amount dispersed by the fund since its official formation; (c) how many applications were classified as originating from a local government district; (d) how many applications were received from applicants in the province of Manitoba; (e) how many of the applications in (d) were successful; and (f) what are the details of all funding provided through the fund, including (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) project description or summary?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 218--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the government's announcement in May 2020 to provide $77 million to assist food processors with their COVID-19 protection and adaptation plans: (a) how much of the funding has been provided to date; and (b) what is the breakdown of how much funding each food processor received by (i) name of recipient, (ii) type of processor (beef, pork, produce, etc.), (iii) amount, (iv) location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 220--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the statutory responsibilities of ministers: what are the statutory responsibilities of the Minister of Rural Economic Development?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 221--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to the requests for information received by the government from the Parliamentary Budget Officer since January 1, 2017: what are the details of all the instances where some or all of the information requested was either withheld or redacted, including (i) the specific request, (ii) date of request, (iii) number of pages withheld or redacted, (iv) title of the individual who authorized the redactions or the refusal to provide all of the information, (v) reason for the redactions or refusal to provide the information?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 222--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the recommendation by the Chief Public Health Officer that Canadians use a three-layer non-medical mask with a filter: (a) how many non-medical masks purchased by the government since March 1, 2020, (i) meet this criterion, (ii) do not meet this criterion; and (b) what is the value of the masks purchased by the government that (i) meet this criterion, (ii) do not meet this criterion?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 223--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to expenditures made since January 1, 2018, for non-public servant travel, and broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) what is the total of all expenditures, broken down by object code; (b) what are the details of each trip taken in relation to expenditures made under the classification non-public servant travel - Key stakeholders (code 0262), or similar classification, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) mode of travel (train, air, etc.), (v) cost of trip, broken down by type of expense (accommodation, airfare, etc.), (vi) organization represented by traveller, (vii) purpose of travel or description of events requiring travel; and (c) what are the details of each trip taken in relation to expenditures made under the classification non-public servant travel - Other travel (code 0265), or similar classification, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) mode of travel (train, air, etc.), (v) cost of trip, broken down by type of expense (accommodation, airfare, etc.), (vi) organization represented by traveller, (vii) purpose of travel or description of events requiring travel?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 225--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the Canada Student Service Grant program and the original decision to have WE Charity administer the program: was an Official Languages Impact Analysis conducted on the program, and, if so, (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) on what date was the analysis completed, (iii) what were the findings of the analysis, (iv) which Minister signed the analysis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 227--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to the backlog of evidence processing in the RCMP crime laboratories: (a) what is the current backlog for each category and type of evidence submitted, including DNA, swabs, fingerprinting, firearms, fabric evidence, non-firearm weapons, and any other type of evidence, broken down by laboratory; (b) what was the expected timeline to deliver evidence prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, broken down by laboratory; (c) what is the current expected timeline to deliver evidence, broken down by laboratory; (d) how many times have the RCMP laboratories sent notices or requests to prosecutors, police officers or police services seeking an extension for the originally projected timelines; (e) in the last 24 months, how many evidence submissions have been rejected because of (i) lack of capacity to do the analysis, (ii) lack of response from the officer or prosecutor who sent in the evidence, (iii) inaccurate or poorly collected evidence, (iv) lack of personnel with the skills needed to do the work, (v) decision by the evidence laboratory that the evidence was not needed or relevant, (vi) decision by the evidence laboratory that they would not process evidence because they were already processing something similar; (f) in the last 24 months, how much work has been outsourced to private laboratories to deal with overflow, broken down by month, year, and the laboratory it was sent; (g) in the last 24 months, how many times was outsourcing of work requested by laboratories and rejected by management due to financial considerations; (h) in the last 24 months, how many times has the RCMP sent out any notice, communication or information declining to process certain evidence or types of evidence; (i) how many employees and vacant positions in evidence laboratories currently exist, broken down by evidence laboratory; (j) how many new staff have been hired in the last 24 months; (k) in the last 24 months, how many employees have left or retired; (l) over the last six months, are there any open positions requiring critical skills, in any of the evidence laboratories, thus limiting the amount of work done by the laboratory, and, if so, what are the details; (m) have any of the RCMP evidence laboratories sought support, work sharing, transfer of work to municipal, provincial or private sector laboratories for evidence they lacked the capacity, skills or equipment to process, and, if so, what are the details; and (n) how many notices have been sent in the last 24 months that evidence would be available for prosecutors or police in time for trial?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 230--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the federal tobacco control strategy for fiscal year 2019-20: (a) what was the budget for the strategy; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each component of the strategy, specifically, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Indigenous Canadians; (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the strategy and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities; and (e) was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control and, if so, how much was reallocated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 232--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to advertising by agencies and Crown corporations under the Finance portfolio since January 1, 2016: (a) how many advertisements have been created in total, broken down by year and by type (internet, print dailies, radio, television, etc.); (b) what is the media authorization number and name of each advertisement listed in (a); (c) what are the details of each advertisement or campaign, including the (i) title or description of the advertisement or campaign, (ii) purpose or goal, (iii) start and end date of the campaign, (iv) media outlets running advertisements, (v) name of the advertising agency used to produce the advertisement, if applicable, (vi) name of the advertising agency used to purchase advertising space, if applicable, (vii) total amount spent, broken down by advertisement and campaign; and (d) what are the details of all contracts awarded related to advertising, including any contracts awarded to advertising or production agencies, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) start and end date, (iv) title or summary of each related campaign, (v) description of goods or services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 233--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces or the Department of National Defence creating dossiers on journalists since November 4, 2015: (a) how many dossiers on journalists have been created; and (b) what are the details of each dossier created including the (i) journalist, (ii) news outlet, (iii) date created, (iv) section that created the dossier (public affairs, defence strategic communication, etc.), (v) observations, analysis or comments contained in dossier?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 234--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the government's Joint Support Ship program and the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, dated November 17, 2020: (a) why did the government choose the more expensive option rather than purchase the vessels from Chantier Davie Canada Inc.; (b) why was the estimated savings of $3 billion with the Davie option not the deciding factor in the government's choice not to use Davie; (c) does the government accept the findings of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as accurate, and, if not, which specific findings does it not accept; and (d) has the government conducted an assessment of the capabilities of the Asterix and Obelix as commercial vessels converted for military purposes versus those of the built-for-purpose Joint Support Ship program, and, if so, what were the findings of the assessment, or, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 237--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to expenditures on social media marketing and management companies, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent each year since January 1, 2016; (b) as of November 11, 2020, what are the details of all social media accounts that are managed, in whole or in part, by a company, including (i) platform, (ii) handle or account name, (iii) name of the company managing the account, (iv) type of work being done by the company (writing posts, scheduling, promoting, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all contracts signed since January 1, 2016, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date and duration of the contract, (iv) which social media accounts are covered by the contract, (v) detailed description of goods or services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 239--
Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to the Veterans Affairs Canada service standard of 16 weeks for decisions in relation to disability benefit applications, for applications received during the 2019-20 fiscal year: (a) how many and what percentage of applications received a decision within (i) the 16-week standard, (ii) between 16 and 26 weeks, (iii) greater than 26 weeks; and (b) how many such applications have yet to receive a decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 240--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to privacy breaches since November 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) how many privacy breaches have occurred; and (b) for each privacy breach, (i) was it reported to the Privacy Commissioner, (ii) how many individuals were affected, (iii) what were the dates of the privacy breach, (iv) were the individuals affected notified that theirinformation may have been compromised and, if so, on what date and by what manner?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 241--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to social media posts that were posted and later deleted or edited on government accounts since January 1, 2019, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of all such posts, including the (i) subject matter, (ii) time and date of the original post, (iii) time and date of the deletion or edit, (iv) description of the original post including the type of post (text, still picture, video, etc.), (v) summary of the edit, including the precise differences between the original post and the revised post, (vi) reason for the deletion or edit?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 243--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to expenditures on, and use of, isolation or quarantine accommodations during the pandemic: (a) how many (i) foreigners, (ii) Canadian citizens or permanent residents have required the government to provide isolation or quarantine accommodations since August 1, 2020; (b) what is the total amount spent by the government on such accommodations since August 1, 2020, broken down by month; (c) what are the details of all such accommodations and in which municipalities and provinces are such accommodations located, including (i) municipality, (ii) province or territory, (iii) type of facility (hotel, dorm rooms, etc.); and (d) are individuals requiring such accommodations required to reimburse the taxpayer for the cost associated with the accommodation and, if so, how much has been received in reimbursements (i) prior to August 1, 2020, (ii) since August 1, 2020?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 244--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the government’s Rapid Housing Initiative: what are the details of all funding commitments provided to date under the initiative, including (i) date of commitment, (ii) amount of federal commitment, (iii) detailed location, including address, municipality and province, (iv) project description, (v) number of housing units, broken down by type of housing?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 245--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to funding provided under the Social Development Partnerships Program since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided under the program, broken down by year and by province or territory; and (b) what are the details of all projects or programs funded through the program, including (i) date of funding, (ii) amount of federal contribution, (iii) recipient, (iv) purpose of funding or project description, (v) location of recipient, (vi) location of project or program, if different than recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 246--
Ms. Monique Pauzé:
With regard to the fossil fuel sector and the renewable energy sector, and for all the departments and agencies affected: (a) what regulatory amendments, including amendments to federal-provincial partnership programs, have been made since March 15, 2020, that affect the funding or regulation of one of these sectors, including (i) the duration of each of these amendments, (ii) the impact of each amendment; and (b) for these two sectors, what financial support measures have been implemented (i) through programs administered by Export Development Canada, (ii) by any other governmental or quasi-governmental department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 247--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to electric vehicle charging stations installed on government property, since January 1, 2016, that are primarily for the use of government employees, such as the stations near West Block or the stations adjacent to parking spots reserved for high-level government officials, such as the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: (a) what is the location of each such charging station; (b) who has access to each of the stations, broken down by location; (c) what was the total cost to install each of the stations, broken down by location; and (d) for those stations that are adjacent to reserved parking spaces for government employees, how does the public have access to each station, if they are available to the public?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 248--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to contracts signed by any government department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, and Bensimon Byrne, since November 4, 2015, and including any contracts that were not or have yet to be posted on the government's proactive disclosure websites: what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) start and end dates, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) title and summary of any related advertising campaign, (v) title of the official who approved the contract, (vi) reason the contract was not made public through proactive disclosure, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 249--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the ongoing process to replace the government's VIP aircraft, including the Airbus and Challenger planes used to transport the Prime Minister and other ministers: (a) what is the projected timeline when each aircraft will be replaced; (b) what is the projected cost to replace each aircraft; (c) what specific action to date has been completed in relation to the process of replacing each aircraft; (d) what replacement options have been presented to the Minister of National Defense, the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Transport in relation to the replacement option; and (e) for each option in (d), what is the anticipated location where each aircraft would be built?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 251--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the 2017 report presented by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled "Starting Again: Improving Government Oversight of Immigration Consultants": what specific action, if any, has the government taken in response to each of the committee’s 21 recommendations, broken down by each of the specific recommendations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 252--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the mandate letter of the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth: (a) which of the items in the mandate letter have been fully accomplished to date; (b) which of the items are currently being worked on, and what is the expected completion date of each of the items; and (c) which of the items are no longer being pursued?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 253--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the response from the Minister of Immigration Refugee and Citizenship (IRCC) to Order Paper question Q-45 about visitors coming to Canada for the sole purpose of giving birth on Canadian soil, which stated that “IRCC is researching the extent of this practice, including how many non-residents giving birth are short-term visitors by engaging the CIHI and Statistics Canada": (a) what is the projected timeline for this research project; (b) how many people from IRCC have been assigned to work on this project; (c) on what date did IRCC “engage” the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) and Statistics Canada; (d) what information has been provided to IRCC to date from CIHI or Statistics Canada, broken down by date the information was provided; and (e) are provincial health authorities, including the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux Quebec, being engaged as part of the ongoing research?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 255--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to both formal and informal requests received by Indigenous Services Canada for ministerial loan guarantees, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such requests, including the (i) date the request was received, (ii) name of the First Nation or organization making the request, (iii) value of the loan guarantee requested, (iv) value of the loan guarantee provided by the government, (v) purpose of the loan?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 256--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to sole-sourced COVID-19 spending since March 13, 2020: (a) how many contracts have been sole-sourced; (b) what are the details of each such sole-sourced contract, including the (i) date of the award, (ii) description of goods or services, including volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of vendor; (c) how many sole-sourced contracts have been awarded to domestic-based companies; and (d) how many sole-sourced contracts have been awarded to foreign-based companies, broken down by country where the company is based?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 258--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (herein referenced as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by Deloitte since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such deliverables, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 259--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) procurement with AMD Medicom: (a) how many units of PPE have been produced for Canada by AMD Medicom since the contract was awarded, broken down by type of PPE; (b) how many units of PPE have been delivered to the government by AMD Medicom since the contract was awarded, broken down by type of PPE and date of delivery; (c) how many units of AMD Medicom PPE are being held in government storage facilities; (d) how many units of AMD Medicom PPE are being held in AMD Medicom storage facilities; (e) how many government storage facilities are there to hold PPE; (f) of the storage facilities in (e), how many are (i) full, (ii) empty; (g) what is AMD Medicom currently producing at, broken down monthly by type of PPE; (h) what was the date of the first shipment by AMD Medicom to the government; (i) what was the date of the first shipment received by the government; (j) since the contract was awarded, how many units of PPE were turned away due to lack of storage facilities; (k) of the units in (j), when were they (i) turned away, (ii) finally delivered; and (l) of the PPE delivered by AMD Medicom, how many units have been distributed to the provinces, by province, month and type of PPE?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 262--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) program, since its inception: (a) what is the total amount paid out through the program; (b) how many individual companies have received payments, broken down by (i) country of physical address, (ii) country of mailing address, (iii) country of the bank account the funds were deposited into; (c) for all companies in (b) that are located in Canada, what is the breakdown down by (i) province or territory, (ii) municipality; (d) how many audits have been conducted of companies receiving the CECRA; and (e) for the audits in (d), how many have found that funding has been spent outside of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 263--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the government's fleet of aircraft: (a) what are the make and model of each aircraft owned by the government; (b) how many of each make and model does the government own; (c) what is the estimated cost to operate each aircraft per hour, broken down by make and model; and (d) what is the estimated hourly (i) fuel usage, (ii) greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint of each aircraft, broken down by make and model?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 264--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke between January 2018 and November 2020: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the applicant, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether the funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (viii) project description or purpose of funding; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke by recipients tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 265--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to Health Canada’s proposed front-of-package and food labelling modernization regulations, and other mandatory labelling changes: (a) what are the details of all proposed or ongoing changes to nutrition and ingredient labelling and all compliance timelines; and (b) when will Health Canada announce the alignment of compliance timelines for each change for labeling in the food and beverage industry, broken down by change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 266--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the new College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants becoming the official regulator of immigration and citizenship consultants: (a) how will the college be funded; (b) what is the projected budget for the college for each of the next five years; (c) what specific powers or enforcement mechanisms will be available to the college; (d) what will be the organizational structure of the college; (e) will all immigration and citizenship consultants be required to be members of the college; (f) what is the timeline for when the college will be operational; (g) what is the timeline for enforcement powers given to the college to come into effect; and (h) will there be any demographic or geographical requirements or considerations for the selection of board members and, if so, what are the details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 267--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the government's position regarding the admissibility to Canada of individuals who have faced politically motivated charges in Hong Kong or China: (a) are foreigners convicted of politically motivated charges in Hong Kong or China barred from entry into Canada as a result of the politically motivated charges; (b) what directives have been issued, or measures taken, to ensure that border and immigration officials do not reject admittance to Canada based on politically motivated charges; and (c) what is the list of offences, which would normally bar admittance to Canada, that the government will consider to be politically motivated if the charges were laid in Hong Kong or China?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 268--
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
With regard to the government's promise of $1.75 billion over eight years in compensation to dairy farmers resulting from concessions made under Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership: (a) how much compensation has been or will be delivered to dairy farmers, broken down by each of the next eight years, starting with the 2020-21 fiscal year; and (b) on what date in each of the fiscal years will the payments be sent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 270--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to bonuses or performance pay given to government executives at the director level (EX-01) or higher, who were assigned duties related to the development, rollout, or implementation of the Phoenix pay system, and broken down by year since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures on bonuses or performance pay for such executives; and (b) how many such executives have received bonuses or performance pay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 271--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to conditions placed on individuals receiving national interest exemptions related to travel restrictions or quarantine requirements during the pandemic: (a) how many individuals have received national interest exemptions since March 1, 2020; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many have had conditions placed on their exemption; (c) what is the breakdown of the type of condition placed on individuals (geographic restriction, limit on time in Canada, etc.), including the number of individuals subject to each type of condition; and (d) what costs have been incurred by the government in relation to faciliting national interest exemptions, broken down by item and type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 273--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to the ongoing issues related to the Indigenous Nova Scotia lobster fishery, since November 20, 2019: (a) how many briefings has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had from the departmental scientists in charge of Lobster Fishing Areas (LFA) 33, LFA 34 and LFA 35 regarding the state of the lobster fisheries; (b) what are the details of the briefings in (a), including (i) the date, (ii) subjects of the briefings, (iii) whether the briefing was requested by the minister or recommended by the department; (c) how many meetings has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had with stakeholders regarding the state of the lobster fisheries; and (d) what are the details of all meetings in (c), including the (i) date, (ii) meeting summary (iii) stakeholder groups in attendance, (iv) location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 275--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the acquisition of buildings by government departments or agencies, since December 1, 2019, for each transaction: (a) what is the location of the building; (b) what is the amount paid; (c) what is the type of building; (d) what is the file number; (e) what is the date of transaction; (f) what is the reason for acquisition; and (g) who was the owner of the building prior to government acquisition?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 276--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the acquisition of land by government departments or agencies, since January 1, 2016, for each transaction: (a) what is the land location; (b) what is the amount paid; (c) what is the size and description of the land; (d) what is the file number; (e) what is the date of transaction; (f) what is the reason for acquisition; and (g) who was the owner of the building prior to government acquisition?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 277--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Business Risk Management Programs (BRMs), AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery: (a) what is the total amount of funds budgeted in fiscal year 2019-20 for AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery; (b) what is the total amount of funds dispersed in fiscal year 2019-20 for AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery; (c) what is the total amount of funds for AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery dispersed in the last 10 fiscal years, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) business risk management program, (iii) province, (iv) sector; and (d) what is the total percentage of agricultural producers who have accessed AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance, and AgriRecovery in the fiscal year 2019-20, broken down by (i) business risk management program, (ii) province, (iii) sector?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 281--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the government's level of co-operation with investigations or analysis conducted by the police or any officer or agent of Parliament, such as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner: (a) since January 1, 2016, how many waivers has the government signed to allow for complete and unrestricted co-operation and sharing of information between the government and those conducting the investigation or analysis; and (b) what are the details of each waiver, including the (i) date, (ii) types of records covered by the waiver (protected, cabinet confidence, etc.), (iii) entity with which the waiver allows information to be shared (RCMP, Commissioner of Lobbying, etc.), (iv) subject matter of the investigation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 282--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to government revenue from taxes or duties related to cannabis sales: (a) what was the original projected revenue from these taxes or duties in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (b) what was the actual revenue generated from these taxes or duties in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by revenue source (GST, excise tax, etc.); (d) what is the projected revenue from these taxes or duties in each of the next five years; (e) what percentage of cannabis sold in Canada does the government estimate is currently sold through (i) legal distributors, (ii) illegal drug dealers; and (f) what was the amount of revenue generated, broken down by month, related to cannabis sales between (i) March 1, 2019, and December 1, 2019, (ii) March 1, 2020, and December 1, 2020?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 284--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to government expenditures on aircraft rentals since December 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on the rental of aircraft; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) dates of rental, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) purpose of trip, (vi) origin and destination of flights, (vii) titles of passengers, including which passengers were on which segments of each trip?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 285--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the various financial relief programs put in place since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount dispersed through each measure to date, broken down by program; and (b) what is the estimated level of fraudulent applications for each program, including (i) estimated percentage of fraudulent applications, (ii) estimated number of fraudulent applications, (iii) estimated dollar value of fraudulent applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 286--
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: (a) since the minister was sworn in on November 20, 2019, how many members of the middle class have seen their prosperity (i) increase, (ii) decrease; and (b) what metrics does the minister use to measure the level of middle class prosperity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 287--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to contracts issued by ministers' offices for the purpose of media training, since December 1, 2019: what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) vendors, (ii) dates of contract, (iii) dates of training, (iv) individuals for whom the training was for, (v) amounts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 288--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to polling by the government since December 1, 2019: (a) what is the list of all poll questions and subjects that have been commissioned since December 1, 2019; (b) for each poll in (a), what was the (i) start and end date each poll was in the field, (ii) sample size of each poll, (iii) manner in which the poll was conducted (in person, virtually, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all polling contracts signed since December 1, 2019, including the (i) vendor, (ii) date and duration, (iii) amount, (iv) summary of the contract, including the number of polls conducted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 289--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) since 1995, what is the number of attempted suicides amongst active and former Canadian Armed Forces members, both regular and reserve force, broken down by (i) year, (ii) service status, (iii) branch, (iv) rank; (b) since 1995, what is the number of suicides amongst active and former Canadian Armed Forces members, both regular and reserve force, broken down by (i) year, (ii) service status, (iii) branch, (iv) rank; (c) what government agency, directorate and office has the ability or responsibility to collect and maintain data related to suicides and attempted suicides by former and current members of the Canadian Armed Forces; (d) what is the step by step protocol and procedure for collecting data on attempted suicides and suicides by past and present Canadian Armed Forces members; and (e) if there is no protocol or step by step process, what would the process be to collect and maintain this data?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 292--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the Prime Minister's announcement in May 2020 of an agreement with CanSino Biologics Inc. (CanSinoBIO) in relation to the development of a potential COVID-19 vaccine: (a) what were the original details of the agreement, as understood by the government in May 2020; (b) on what date did the government first become aware that the agreement would not proceed as planned; (c) on what date did the government become aware that shipments of Ad5-nCoV were being blocked by the Chinese government; (d) what reason, if any, did the Chinese government provide to the government for blocking the shipment; (e) has the government transferred any money or any type of expenditures to CanSinoBIO since January 1, 2020, and, if so, what is the total amount sent, broken down by date of transfer; (f) what are the details of any contracts signed with CanSinoBIO since January 1, 2020, including the (i) amount, (ii) original value, (iii) final value, (iv) date contract was signed, (v) description of goods or services, including volume; (g) was the National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister advised of terms of the terms agreement prior to the Prime Minister's announcement, and, if so, did he approve of the agreement; (h) was the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service informed of the details of the agreement prior to the Prime Minister's announcement, and, if so, did they raise any concerns with the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office; and (i) what were the results of any security analysis conducted in relation to CanSinoBIO?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 293--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to the government's decision not to conduct an Official Languages Impact Analysis in relation to certain items announced since January 1, 2020: (a) why was an Official Languages Impact Analysis not conducted on the proposal to have WE Charity run the Canada Student Service Grant; (b) what is the complete list of items approved by Treasury Board since March 13, 2020, that underwent the required Official Languages Impact Analysis prior to submission; (c) what is the complete list of items approved by Treasury Board since March 13, 2020, that did not undergo an Official Languages Impact Analysis, prior to submission; and (d) for each item in (c), what is the government's rationale for not abiding by the Official Languages Impact Analysis requirement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 294--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the consultations that have taken place since 2018 regarding potential changes to the seed royalty regime: (a) what is the complete list of entities consulted; (b) what is the number of independent producers consulted; (c) what specific concerns were raised by those consulted, broken down by proposal; and (d) is the government currently considering any changes to the seed royalty regime, and, if so, what are the details, including the timeline, of any potential changes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 295--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to the statement of the Vice-President of Guyana, in August 2020, that, "it's a Canadian grant and there will be a Canadian consultant," in reference to the appointment of Alison Redford to assist in developing Guyana's oil and gas sector: (a) what are the details of the grant, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) purpose, (iv) department and program administering the grant; (b) what are the details of any other grants, programs, initiatives, or expenditures that have provided any assistance to Guyana's oil and gas sector since November 4, 2015; and (c) did the government conduct any analysis on the impact that the development of the Guyana oil and gas sector will have on the Canadian oil and gas sector, and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 296--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to investments in Canada Revenue Agency tax compliance measures to crack down on international tax evasion, since the 2016–17 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many auditors specializing in foreign accounts have been hired; (b) how many audits have been conducted; (c) how many notices of assessment have been sent; (d) what was the amount recovered; (e) how many cases were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (f) how many criminal charges have been laid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 297--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the design and implementation of programs and spending measures relating to COVID-19, broken down by program and spending measure: (a) have contracts been awarded to private-sector suppliers and, if so, how many; and (b) what are the details for each contract in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final contract amount, (v) supplier, (vi) country of the supplier?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 300--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the temporary suspension of some programs and services of the Canada Revenue Agency, since the month of March 2020: (a) what is the name of each suspended program and service; and (b) for each program and service in (a), what is the (i) suspension date and resumption date, (ii) what are the reasons for the suspension?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 301--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
With regard to the decision of Transport Canada not to allow passengers to remain in their vehicles on certain decks of BC Ferries throughout the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) did Transport Canada conduct any analysis relating to exempting passengers from this restriction throughout the pandemic in order to prevent possible exposure to COVID-19, and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis; (b) why did Transport Canada require those passengers to venture out of their vehicles into the communal areas of BC Ferries; (c) did Transport Canada consult Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada prior to enforcing this restriction during the pandemic, and, if not, why; (d) why did Transport Canada refuse to exempt high risk and elderly travelers from this requirement, thus causing such individuals to be unnecessarily exposed to others; (e) what are the details of any communication received by either Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada regarding this decision from Transport Canada, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents; and (f) what was the response of Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to any communication received in (e)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 302--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB): (a) how many self-employed Canadians earning more than $5,000 in gross income, but less than $5,000 in net income, have applied for the benefit during the qualification period; (b) how many individuals in (a) have been asked by the Canada Revenue Agency to repay the amount they received under the CERB; (c) what is the (i) average, (ii) median, (iii) total amount that the individuals in (a) were asked to repay; and (d) why did the government not specify that the $5,000 requirement was for net income rather than gross income on the original application form?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 303--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the COVID Alert app and the November 23, 2020, update to fix a bug causing gaps in exposure checks for some users: (a) on what date did the government first become aware of the gaps or other issues; (b) how many potential exposures were missed because of the gaps; (c) how many app users encountered gaps in exposure checks; (d) on what date did the gaps first begin; (e) on what date were the gaps fully resolved; (f) what is the average number of days that the gaps lasted for those impacted; (g) were certain types of mobile devices more prone to encounter the gaps, and, if so, which ones; and (h) on what date did the government notify provincial health officials about the gaps?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 304--
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to medical equipment, excluding personal protective equipment, purchased by the government related to the government's COVID-19 response: (a) what is the total amount spent, broken down by type of equipment (ventilators, syringes, etc.); (b) what is the total number of contracts signed for medical equipment; (c) what is the breakdown of the amount spent by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located; and (d) what is the total number of contracts signed broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 305--
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) purchased by the government since the COVID-19 pandemic began: (a) what is the total amount spent on PPE; (b) what is the total number of contracts signed for PPE; (c) what is the breakdown of the amount spent by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located; and (d) what is the total number of contracts signed broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 306--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), since March 2020: (a) how many air passenger complaints have been received, broken down by the subject matter of the complaint; (b) of the complaints received in (a), how many have been resolved, broken down by (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (c) how many air passenger complaints were dismissed, withdrawn or declined, broken down by (i) subject matter of the complaint, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (d) for each complaint in (a), how many cases were resolved through a settlement; (e) how many full-time equivalent agency case officers are assigned to deal with air travel complaints, broken down by agency case officers dealing with the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (f) what is the average number of air travel complaints handled by an agency case officer, broken down by agency case officers dealing with the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (g) what is the number of air travel complaints received but not yet handled by an agency case officer, broken down by agency case officers dealing with the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (h) in how many cases were passengers told by CTA facilitators that they were not entitled to compensation, broken down by rejection category; (i) among the cases in (h), what was the reason for the CTA facilitators not to refer the passengers and the airlines to the Montréal Convention that is incorporated in the international tariff (terms and conditions) of the airlines; (j) how does the CTA define a "resolved" complaint for the purposes of reporting it in its statistics; (k) when a complainant chooses not to pursue a complaint, does it count as "resolved"; (l) how many business days on average does it effectively take from the filing of a complaint to an officer to be assigned to the case, broken down by the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (m) how many business days on average does it effectively take from the filing of a complaint to reaching a settlement, broken down by the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; and (n) for complaints in (a), what is the percentage of complaints that were not resolved in accordance with the service standards?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 307--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to GST/HST tax revenues, beginning in fiscal year 2016-17, and broken down by fiscal year: what was the revenue shortfall for (i) suppliers of digital goods and services that are not physically located in Canada, (ii) goods supplied through fulfillment warehouses with online suppliers and digital platforms located outside of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 308--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to government advertising campaigns launched since January 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all campaigns, including the (i) title and description, (ii) total budget, (iii) start and end date; and (b) for each campaign, what is the breakdown of the total amount spent on advertising by each type of media (radio, television, social media, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 310--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to expenditures on communications professional services (codes 035, 0351, and 0352) since January 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or competitively bid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 312--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to funding provided through the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund, since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided to date; (b) what is the number of recipients; and (c) what are the details of each funding recipient, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) location of the recipient, (v) type of funding (loan, grant, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 313--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to SNC-Lavalin and the design and implementation of COVID-19 programs and spending measures, broken down by program and spending measures: (a) have any contracts been awarded to SNC-Lavalin, and, if so, how many; and (b) what are the details of each of the contracts in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) description of the goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final contract amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 314--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to government business finance programs and government contracts, broken down by funding program, contracts and fiscal year, since 2011: (a) what is the total funding for (i) Facebook, (ii) Google, (iii) Amazon, (iv) Apple, (v) Netflix?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 315--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to funding to support food banks and local food organizations, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory and by program: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were denied; and (d) of the applications denied in (c), what is the rationale for each denied application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 316--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the COVID-19 Economic Response Plan and the section outlining support for Indigenous people: what is the total amount dispersed and the total number of recipients to date for each of the following listed programs and initiatives, (i) supporting Indigenous communities, (ii) boosting the On­Reserve Income Assistance Program, (iii) funding for additional health care resources for Indigenous communities, (iv) expanding and improving access to mental wellness services, (v) making personal hygiene products and nutritious food more affordable, (vi) providing support to Indigenous post­secondary students, (vii) ensuring a safe return to school for First Nations, (viii) new shelters to protect and support Indigenous women and children fleeing violence?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 317--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to information held by the Bank of Canada: (a) what was the total combined purchase price of all the Government of Canada bonds that the Bank of Canada purchased on the secondary market since March 1, 2020; (b) what was the total combined purchase price of the bonds listed in (a) when originally auctioned on the primary market; (c) what was the average sale price of (i) 90-day treasuries, (ii) one-year bonds, (iii) two-year bonds, (iv) three-year bonds, (v) five-year bonds, (vi) 10-year bonds, (vii) 30-year bonds, since March 1, 2020, to the primary market; (d) what is the average sale price of (i) 90-day treasuries, (ii) one-year bonds, (iii) two-year bonds, (iv) three-year bonds, (v) five-year bonds, (vi) 10-year bonds, (vii) 30-year bonds at the time of issuance paid by all purchasers, other than the Bank of Canada; (e) what was the average purchase price paid by the Bank of Canada for (i) 90-day treasuries, (ii) one-year bonds, (iii) two-year bonds, (iv) three-year bonds, (v) five-year bonds, (vi) 10-year bonds, (vii) 30-year bonds; (f) what is the actual answer or information contained in any URL links provided in the response in (a) through (e), if applicable; and (g) what are the details of all corporate bonds that the Bank of Canada has purchased since March 1, 2020, including the (i) name of the company, (ii) purchase and price per unit, (iii) date of the purchase, (iv) total amount of the purchase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 318--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Boeing 737 MAX 8: (a) during communication with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) on or after October 29, 2018, including in the emergency Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA, what information was received by Transport Canada, including (i) the findings of any FAA risk analysis into the airworthiness of the 737 MAX 8 and likelihood of fatal crashes during its service, (ii) any information concerning the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) software and its role in the crash of Lion Air flight 610, (iii) any information about the risks of an angle-of-attack sensor failure, (iv) data indicating the cause of the crash of Lion Air flight 610, including black box recordings, (v) any explanation of the cause of the crash of Lion Air flight 610, including any description of the runaway stabilizer trim; (b) was this information communicated to the Minister of Transport or the Director General of Civil Administration, and, if so, when; (c) were any concerns with the absence of information regarding the crash of Lion Air flight 610 conveyed to the FAA, and, if so, what was the substance of these concerns; (d) did Transport Canada consider any order grounding the 737 MAX 8 between October 29, 2018, and March 10, 2019, and, if so, why was this option rejected; (e) at any time before March 10, 2019, did Transport Canada receive any concerns about the 737 MAX 8 from airlines or pilot associations and, if so, what were these concerns and who issued them; (f) after October 29, 2018, did Transport Canada consider undertaking its own risk analysis of the 737 MAX 8, and, if so, why was this option rejected; and (g) prior to March 10, 2019, did Transport Canada communicate the causes of the Lion Air crash, including an explanation of the runaway stabilizer trim, with any airlines or pilot associations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 319--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the National Shipbuilding Strategy since 2011: how much money has been invested by the federal government per year and per project at (i) Seaspan, (ii) Davie, (iii) Irving?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 320--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to projects funded through the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives (CFLI) since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided through the CFLI; and (b) what are the details of each project including the (i) amount, (ii) date project was funded, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description, (v) location of the project, (vi) relevant Canadian Embassy or High Commission that approved the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 321--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the government's decision not to use PnuVax for domestic vaccine production: (a) why did the government decide not to invest in the PnuVax facility so that it could produce vaccines; (b) did the government have any communication with PnuVax about the possibility of vaccine production since March 13, 2020, and, if so, what are the details of each communication; (c) did the government discuss the possibility of a Strategic Innovation Fund investment with PnuVax, and, if not, why not; and (d) has the government received any applications for funding or financial assistance from PnuVax since March 13, 2020, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) date of application, (ii) government program, (iii) amount applied for, (iv) reason application was denied, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 322--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to information held by Health Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or Statistics Canada: (a) what is the number of surgeries that have been postponed since March 1, 2020, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province or territory; (b) what is the number of hospitalizations resulting from substance abuse or overdose since March 1, 2020; (c) what is the number of fatalities resulting from substance abuse or overdose; and (d) what is the number of suicides since March 1, 2020, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province or territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 323--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the government’s responses to Order Paper questions Q-1 to Q-169, and broken down by each response: what is the title of the government official that signed the required Statement of Completeness for each response?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 324--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the communities that comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, between the 1993-94 and current year fiscal year: (a) what are the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to the municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (b) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the (i) Comox Valley Regional District, (ii) Regional District of Nanaimo, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, (iv) Powell River Regional District, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (c) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Hornby Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasqueti Island, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (d) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the (i) Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nations, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K'omoks First Nation, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) projects, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (e) what are the federal infrastructure investments directed towards the Pacific Rim National Park, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by year; and (f) what are the federal infrastructure contributions to highways, including but not limited to (i) Highway 4, (ii) Highway 19, (iii) Highway 19a, (iv) Bamfield Road, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) total expenditure by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 325--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to the promises made in the 2015 and 2019 Liberal Party of Canada election platforms to end the discriminatory blood donation ban for gay and bisexual men: (a) on what exact date will the ban end; and (b) why did the government not end the ban during its first five years in power?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 326--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government in 2016: (a) how much money has been allocated to Transport Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (b) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Transport Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and program; (c) how much money has been allocated to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (d) how much money has been spent under the OPP by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (e) how much money has been allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (f) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Environment and Climate Change Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (g) how much money has been spent under the OPP on efforts to mitigate the potential impacts of oil spills, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (h) how much money from the OPP has been allocated to the Whales Initiative, since 2016, broken down by year; (i) how much money has been spent under the OPP on the Whales Initiative since 2016; and (j) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that the funding allocated under the OPP is spent on its stated goals in a timely manner?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 327--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to the $3 billion transfer to the provinces and territories for support to increase the wages of low-income essential workers: a) what is the total amount transferred broken down by province and territory; and b) what are the details on the use of the funds transferred, broken down by province and territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 328--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to funding for the initiative to support women's shelters and sexual assault centres, including facilities in Indigenous communities, since May 2020, broken down by province and territory, and by program: a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; b) what is the total number of applications; c) of the applications in b), how many were approved and how many were refused; and d) of the applications refused in c), what is the rationale for each refused application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 329--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to funding for homelessness support through Reaching Home, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory, and by program: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were denied; and (d) of the applications denied in (c), what is the rationale for each denied application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 330--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to support for charitable and not-for-profit organizations serving vulnerable populations through the Emergency Community Support Fund, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were declined; and d) of the applications declined in (c), what is the rationale for each declined application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 331--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to funding for youth employment and skills development programs, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory, by program: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were declined; and d) of the declined applications in (c), what is the rationale for each declined application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 333--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regards to Lobster Fishing Area 34 between 2016 and 2019, broken down by year: (a) how many kilograms of lobster are confirmed to have landed outside of the commercial season; (b) how many kilograms are estimated to have landed outside of the commercial season; (c) under what legal or regulatory authority, if any, was the lobster in (a) and (b) harvested; and (d) if there was no legal or regulatory authority, how many charges were laid under the Fisheries Act in relation to the fishing in (a) and (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 334--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regards to the Transport of Munitions of War (MoW) by Foreign Air Operators between 2015 and 2019, broken down by year: (a) how many foreign air operators have applied for a Ministerial Authorization to carry MoW when operating in Canada; (b) how many foreign air operators have applied for a blanket Ministerial Authorization to carry MoW; (c) of the applications in (a) and (b), how many were (i) issued, (ii) rejected; (d) what are the details of each flight authorized to carry MoW, including (i) origin, (ii) destination, (iii) date, (iv) country of aircraft registration, (v) details of cargo that necessitated the MoW authorization; and (e) how many times have foreign air operators been found to be in breach of condition or non-compliant in respect to carrying MoW?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 335--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to consultations on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions since October 20, 2019, at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Department of Finance Canada, and the Privy Council Office: (a) what, if any, consultations have occurred with the heavy trucking sector (specifically operators and manufacturers of class 8 vehicles) with regard to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions since October 20, 2019; (b) did the consultations take place in person, via telephone or virtually due to COVID-19 restrictions; (c) what are the dates of those consultations; (d) who was in attendance for those consultations, including the (i) name of each individual from any department or agency in attendance, (ii) position and title of each individual department or agency, (iii) name of each company or organization represented, (iv) position and title of each individual from those respective companies or organizations represented; (e) were any briefing notes prepared in advance of each consultation, and, if so, what are the titles of those briefing notes; (f) were any briefing notes prepared following each consultation, and, if so, what are the titles of those briefing notes; and (g) were there any notes taken during those consultations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 336--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Department of Finance Canada, and the Privy Council Office: what is the government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the heavy trucking sector (specifically operators and manufacturers of class 8 vehicles) at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Department of Finance Canada, and the Privy Council Office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 337--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the agreements between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States signed on October 26, 2020: what are the details of such agreements, including the (i) title, (ii) summary of the terms?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 338--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the Minister of National Defence's use of Canadian Armed Forces aircraft from November 4, 2015, to December 9, 2020: what are the details of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) purpose of the travel, (v) types of aircraft used?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 339--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the participation of the Minister of National Defence in military exercises and SkyHawks training where parachute jumps were involved, from November 4, 2015, to December 9, 2020: (a) how many times did the minister take part in parachute jumps with the Canadian Armed Forces; and (b) what are the dates and locations of each parachute jump by the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 340--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to counterfeit goods discovered and seized by the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other relevant government entities, since January 1, 2020: (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, (vii) country of origin; and (c) for each seizure that included medical or personal protective equipment (PPE), what are the details, including (i) type of recipient (government agency, private citizen, corporation, etc.), (ii) name of the government entity that ordered the goods, if applicable, (iii) description of medical equipment or PPE, including quantity, (iv) estimated value, (v) location where goods were seized, (vi) whether any action taken against the counterfeit supplier, and, if so, what are the details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 341--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy: (a) what is the breakdown of the over one million Canadians helped to find affordable housing mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, broken down by year and province or territory; (b) what is the breakdown for the number of Canadians helped to find affordable housing since January 1, 2010, broken down by year and province or territory; (c) what is the highest known cost of rent and median cost of rent that currently exists that meets the affordability criteria (i) used in the National Housing Co-investment Fund, (ii) used in the Rental Construction Financing initiative, (iii) and used among the Canadians helped to find affordable housing; (d) what percentage of the initial 50 percent target of reducing chronic homelessness has been achieved so far; and (e) how much funding through the National Housing Strategy has gone to Indigenous housing providers since 2017, broken down by year, province or territory, and stream?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 342--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) processing levels since January 1, 2020, broken down by month: (a) how many applications have been received, broken down by stream and country of origin; (b) how many applications have been fully approved, broken down by stream and country of origin; (c) how many applications are in backlog, broken down by stream and country of origin; (d) what is the breakdown between inland and outland applications for family class sponsorship applications in (a) and (b); (e) how many holders of Confirmation of Permanent Residence that have expired since IRCC shut down operations (i) are there in total, (ii) have been contacted to renew their intent to travel to Canada, (iii) have confirmed their intent to travel, (iv) have been approved to travel while meeting the travel exemption; and (f) what is the number of extended family reunification travel authorization requests that were (i) received, (ii) processed beyond the 14 business day standard processing time.
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 343--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to asylum seekers: (a) since 2020, broken down by nationality (including passport holders for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as its own category) and year, how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), (iii) approved by the IRB, (iv) refused by the IRB, (v) had a request for a pre-remove risk assessment (PRRA), and (vi) have had a PRRA decision made in their favour; (b) what is the average time from the receipt of an application until a decision was made in (a)(iii) and (a)(iv); (c) how many cessation applications have been made by the government since 2012, broken down by year, grounds for the application and country of origin; (d) is there an annual target to strip refugees of status; and (e) what are the total resources spent pursuing cessation cases, broken down by year.
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 345--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to administrative support provided to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) between June 1, 2018, and December 1, 2020: (a) what is the total scope of the administrative, logistical and operational support provided to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission by departmental personnel regularly situated at DFO national headquarters in Ottawa, and what is the precise nature of that support, excluding all activities and expenditures for which the department is reimbursed in accordance with the annual memoranda of agreement between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for delivery of sea lamprey control; and (b) how many departmental personnel regularly situated at DFO national headquarters in Ottawa regularly and substantially engage in activities on behalf of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and what is the precise nature of that engagement, excluding all activities for which the department is reimbursed in accordance with the annual memoranda of agreement between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the delivery of sea lamprey control?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 346--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to immigration: (a) how many post-graduate work permits have lost status since Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) shut down operations in response to COVID-19, broken down by month; (b) what is the average time taken for the issuance of an acknowledgement of receipt for Quebec skilled workers after an application has been received by IRCC since 2015, broken down by month; and (c) since 2018, broken down by month and country of origin, how many applications in the Student Direct Stream have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) refused?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
8555-432-206 Next Generation Human Resou ...8555-432-207 Government reaction to meas ...8555-432-208 Contracts signed by the gov ...8555-432-211 Training provided to Canadi ...8555-432-212 Personal protective equipme ...8555-432-213 Invest in Canada8555-432-214 Business Credit Availabilit ...8555-432-217 Universal Broadband Fund8555-432-218 Funding for food processors8555-432-220 Statutory responsibilities ...8555-432-221 Request for information fro ... ...Show all topics
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-12-09 15:39
Expand

Question No. 170--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to compensation for farmers who produce products subject to supply management resulting from signing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and other trade agreements: (a) broken down by type of producer (dairy, chicken, etc.), what is the total amount of compensation sent to farmers in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (b) in the year immediately following August 19, 2019, when a news release was put out by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announcing that $345 million in compensation will be paid to dairy producers in the first year in the form of direct payments, how much was actually paid out; and (c) for all planned payments over the next five years, broken down by type of producer, what are the (i) dates, (ii) amounts, (iii) formula used, (iv) name of trade agreement compensation was related to?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in regard to part (a) of the question, the dairy farm investment program, which was established as a result of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, provided $61,852,928.14 in fiscal year 2018-19 and $61,686,884.48 in fiscal year 2019-20 in dairy compensation.
In regard to part (b), the dairy direct payment program provided $338,634,952.78 in fiscal year 2019-20 as compensation for dairy farmers.
Finally, in regard to part (c), details related to planned payments for eligible producers of supply-managed commodities are still being determined.

Question No. 184--
Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas:
With regard to the erosion of multiple government services in the Quebec administrative region of the Lower St. Lawrence over the past 25 years: (a) how many and which departments and agencies, in full detail, have reduced or increased their staffing in the abovementioned region; (b) what is the exact number of public service jobs involved; (c) what specific impact studies were completed as part of the decision-making process that led to these staffing reductions; (d) what performance assessments and analyses were conducted as part of this process in each of these departments and agencies; (e) exactly how much in overall payroll did the transferred or abolished jobs amount to; (f) what were the full costs incurred by the government to relocate public servants and their families; and (g) what socio-economic analyses did the government conduct before the various decisions to abolish or relocate these jobs, including the list of the various findings of the public consultations on these issues?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is strongly committed to recruiting and retaining a dynamic and diverse workforce that can deliver on its priorities.
The size and makeup of the public service fluctuates in response to government priorities and program requirements. Deputy heads have an ongoing responsibility to manage staffing and workforce adjustment decisions within their organizations.
Workforce adjustment is a situation that occurs when a deputy head decides that the services of one or more indeterminate employees will no longer be required beyond a specified date because of the discontinuance of a function or a lack of work, a relocation in which the employee does not wish to relocate, or an alternative delivery initiative.
All indeterminate employees in the core public administration, both represented and unrepresented, are covered under workforce adjustment agreements.

Question No. 202--
Mr. Jack Harris:
With regard to government litigation: how much has it cost the government to litigate the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik and his claims that Canada violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the value of all legal services, disbursements, and costs awards for Federal Court file numbers T-727-08, T-1580-09, and DES-3-18, from June 1, 2008, to the present?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the costs incurred by the government to litigate the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik and his claims that Canada violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.
The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with Mr. Abousfian Abdelrazik Charter claims, both at the Federal Court, Federal Court file number T-727-08, T-1580-09, T- 889-10 and DES-3-18; and Federal Court of Appeal, Federal Court of Appeal file number A-370-09, since June 1, 2008, amount to approximately $9.3 million. This amount covers the costs associated with the numerous procedures, including interlocutory motions and appeal thereof that have been filed in these court cases over a period of more than 12 years. The services targeted here are litigation services provided, in this case, by the Department of Justice, as well as litigation support services. 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 covered in the total amount mentioned in this response include file-related legal disbursements as well as costs awards. The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information currently contained in Department of Justice systems, as of October 23, 2020.
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-12-09 15:39
Expand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 205--
Mr. Jack Harris:
With regard to the use of force by RCMP members in the course of their duty: (a) how many interactions between members of the RCMP and members of the public occurred in each of the years from 2000 to 2020, inclusively, that resulted in the (i) death, (ii) bodily injury, of a person, whether such death occurred immediately or subsequent to the incident or while in police custody; and (b) for each incident, what was the date, (i) whether the incident resulted in the injury, however minor, or death of the detained person, (ii) the province where the incident took place, (iii) the RCMP division involved, (iv) the community within the province where the incident occurred, or if the community is not possible, the RCMP detachment responsible for the geographic region where the incident occurred, (v) whether the incident took place in public, in a private home or other building, an RCMP vehicle, in an RCMP detachment building, or in an RCMP cell, (vi) whether the RCMP was acting in a contract policing role, (vii) the race, gender, sex, age of the person injured or deceased, (viii) whether medical attention was sought, (ix) if an investigation was launched, (x) if an investigation was launched, the name of the investigating agency, (xi) the outcome of any of the investigations, including the date thereof, and whether any charges were recommended or laid?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
8555-432-171 National security exceptions8555-432-172 Work from home equipment8555-432-173 COVID-19 Economic Response Plan8555-432-174 Car and driver services8555-432-175 Government advertising8555-432-176 Official residences8555-432-177 Broadband Internet8555-432-178 Access to information requests8555-432-179 Indigenous communities and ...8555-432-181 Liechtenstein and Bahamas i ...8555-432-182 Offshore Tax Informant Program ...Show all topics
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

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

Question No. 161--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to Requests for Proposal (RFP), Invitations to Tender (ITI) and Notices of Proposed Procurement (NPP) put forward by Public Works and Government Services Canada since March 11, 2020: (a) how many times has the national security exception been invoked; (b) for each RFP, ITI or NPP in (a), what was the (i) publication date, (ii) closing date, (iii) solicitation number, (iv) title, (v) reason given for national security exception, (vi) competitive procurement strategy, (vii) procurement entity, (viii) end user entity; (c) for each item in (b), was (i) the list of interested suppliers for the tender publicly available, (ii) the successful firm or vendor and contract value publicly disclosed; and (d) for contracts already awarded in (a), what was the (i) vendor, (ii) date the contract was awarded, (iii) value of the contract?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the national security exception provided for in all of Canada’s trade agreements allows Canada to exclude a procurement from some or all of the obligations of the relevant trade agreement(s), where Canada considers it necessary to do so in order to protect its national security interests.
That being said, there is no identifier in PSPC’s centralized database to identify contracts that received a national security exception. As a result, PSPC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No. 166--
Mr. Rob Moore:
With regard to judicial appointments made by the government, and the CBC report on October 20, 2020, that stated “[t]he Liberal Research Bureau also participates in the background checks on judicial candidates, according to federal sources and an internal government email”: (a) what role does the Liberal Research Bureau have for the government with regard to background checks for judicial candidates; (b) who in the government provides the names of potential judicial candidates to the Liberal Research Bureau; and (c) has the government provided secret security clearance to anyone in the Liberal Research Bureau so that those individuals are legally allowed to possess the names of candidates and, if so, (i) who was granted clearance, (ii) when was the clearance granted?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our government has put in a place an open, transparent and accountable process to identify and appoint highly meritorious jurists. The independent Judicial Advisory Committees make recommendations based on the merit and quality of the candidates who apply. We have appointed more than 400 jurists, women and men, to the bench. The diversity of these appointments is also unprecedented. Of the judges appointed under the new process since 2016, 55% are women, 10% are visible minorities, 5% identify as LGBTQ2, 3% are indigenous and 1% have a disability. These jurists not only meet the needs of our courts, but are also reflective of Canada’s diversity.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 169--
Ms. Leona Alleslev:
With regard to advance contract award notices (ACAN) published by the government since January 1, 2020: what are the details of all ACAN published by the government, including (i) date of notice, (ii) date by which any potential competitors were required to submit a statement of capabilities, (iii) pre-selected vendor, (iv) contract value, (v) summary of goods or services, including volume, (vi) reason the government believed the pre-selected vendor was the only one capable of offering the goods or services, (vii) number of competitors who submitted a statement of capabilities, (viii) vendor awarded with the contract, if different than the pre-selected vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-12-04 12:24
Expand

Question No. 146--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to Arctic oil and gas and the government’s review in 2021 of its ban on drilling in Northern Canada: (a) what is the timeline for the review; (b) have any stakeholders been consulted to date in relation to the review and, if so, which ones; (c) which stakeholders does the government anticipate hearing from during its review; (d) what form will the consultations take (in-person meetings, Zoom calls, etc); (e) what is the proximity of each Arctic community to the nearest pipeline or oil or gas reserve; and (f) which Arctic communities are still forced to import their oil or gas from a source more than 500 kilometres away?
Response
Ms. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the five-year science-based review is currently under way and is being co-managed by regional science-based review committees in the western Arctic and eastern Arctic offshore areas. The committees will prepare a final report before December 2021.
With regard to (b), the five-year science-based review will rely substantively on the two regional strategic environmental assessments, RSEA, recently concluded in the Beaufort Sea and Baffin Bay and Davis Strait regions. The Beaufort RSEA was a partnership between CIRNAC, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and Inuvialuit Game Council. The Baffin Bay and Davis Strait RSEA was led by the Nunavut Impact Review Board, with a working group composed of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Government of Nunavut and CIRNAC.
Extensive engagement across Inuvialuit and Inuit communities and with regional land claim organizations took place over the course of the RSEAs. Numerous other stakeholders provided input throughout, including territorial governments and various departments of the federal government, fisheries organizations, non-governmental organizations, industry and members of the public.
Further engagement with regional and local governments, as well as other indigenous communities and partners, will be determined and undertaken by the regional science-based review committees in the western Arctic and eastern Arctic as they begin to draft the final reports, anticipated in early 2021.
With regard to (c), the review committee in the western Arctic is co-managed by Canada and officials from the governments of Yukon and the Northwest Territories and representatives of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. The review committee in the eastern Arctic is co-managed by Canada and officials from the Government of Nunavut as well as representatives from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, supported by participation from the three regional Inuit associations.
CIRNAC is relying on the established co-management governance process and from input from our northern committee partners at the community-level to co-develop and implement an appropriate northern engagement plan.
With regard to (d), community engagement for both strategic environmental assessments was done through public meetings, as well as with community organizations. Input from other stakeholders was provided during in-person meetings or conference calls via the advisory committee, in the case of Beaufort, and working group, in the case of Baffin Bay and Davis Strait.
The regional science-based review committees in the western Arctic and eastern Arctic initially convened meetings in person, but transitioned to virtual meetings following the emergency measures and travel restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The committees continue to meet virtually on a regular basis.
With regard to (e), in the Northwest Territories there are two federally operated pipelines in operation. The first pipeline, the 740-km Enbridge pipeline transports crude oil from the Norman Wells oilfield in the NWT to Zama in Northern Alberta. The pipeline route is near the communities of Norman Wells, Tulita, Wrigley and Fort Simpson. The other pipeline, the 50-km Ikhil pipeline, transports natural gas to the community of Inuvik.
With regard to (f), Arctic communities rely on a number of sources for energy, including hydro and other renewable energy sources. However, many remote communities continue to rely on diesel fuel and other petroleum products as the primary energy source. The diesel fuel and other petroleum products used by Arctic communities are refined products. There are no refineries in the three territories.

Question No. 152--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the government's Innovation Superclusters Initiative: (a) what is the total funding provided through the program to date; (b) what are the details of all organizations and projects which have received funding, including (i) the date of funding, (ii) recipient, (iii) project description, (iv) amount, (v) location of project?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a detailed list of Canada’s supercluster projects is available online at the following links: www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/093.nsf/eng/home, www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/093.nsf/eng/00018.html and www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/093.nsf/eng/00021.html
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-12-04 12:24
Expand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 153--
Mrs. Tamara Jansen:
With regard to the ongoing transition in the city of Surrey, British Columbia, from a Royal Canadian Mounted Police force to a municipal police force: (a) will the government be providing use of its shared information management and IT services through Shared Services Canada to support the new municipal force, and, if so, has a costing arrangement been completed between the city of Surrey and the government; (b) if not, on what date will Shared Services Canada cease to provide IT support to the police in Surrey; (c) has the city of Surrey been notified of the decision related to IT support, and, if so, on what date was the city notified; (d) how many meetings involving officials at the Assistant Deputy Minister or higher rank have occurred where the transition was discussed, and what are the dates and list of attendees for each meeting; (e) how many times have federal officials attended meetings of the federal Surrey Police Transition Committee, and what were the (i) dates of each meeting, (ii) titles of federal officials in attendance; (f) what is the total value of the inventoried IT assets and systems; (g) what is the total value of the inventoried assets and equipment held at the Surrey detachment, and on what date was the latest inventory conducted; and (h) what is the government's projected timeline on the completion of the transition?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 138--
Ms. Sylvie Bérubé:
With regard to calls to action 81 and 82 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which called for commemorative monuments to be installed in Ottawa and other capitals to honour residential school survivors, and all the children who were lost to their families and communities: (a) has the government taken steps to respond to these two calls to action; and (b) if so, what are the details of the steps it has taken, including (i) providing subsidies to build a monument in the federal capital, (ii) steps to purchase or designate a site for installing said monument, (iii) how many public servants are currently working to respond to these calls to action, (iv) the status of the consultation process with survivors and organizations, (v) the status of discussions with the provinces and territories regarding the full realization of these calls to action?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Department of Canadian Heritage has begun work on fulfilling call to action 81. The federal government cannot speak to call to action 82 as this call is directed specifically towards provincial and territorial governments.
With regard to (b)(i), for call to action 81, no subsidies have been provided at this time for the building of a national monument in Canada’s capital region.
With regard to (b)(ii), for call to action 81, planning is in the preliminary stages. Designation of a site will be undertaken once subsidies are provided to build this monument. As it is likely that a national monument would be constructed on federal lands in the capital, no purchase of land is envisioned at this time.
With regard to (b)(iii), a number of public servants are currently working on the call to action 81 as part of their many tasks, the equivalent to a combined number of 0.5 full-time equivalents, FTEs, approximately.
With regard to (b)(iv), the Department of Canadian Heritage held a workshop on October 22, 2019, that was led by Dr. Marie Wilson, former commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that brought together members from the Survivor Circle of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as well as other individuals, including from the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, for example.
With regard to (b)(v), the Department of Canadian Heritage has no information of the status of discussions with the provinces and territories regarding the realization of these calls to action. The federal government cannot speak to call to action 82 as this call is directed specifically towards provincial and territorial governments.

Question No. 141--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s Sovereign Loans Program and the over $620 million budgeted in 2018 for the program: (a) of loans provided through the program since February 1, 2018, what is the total (i) number, (ii) value; and (b) what are the details of all loans, including (i) loan start date, (ii) recipient, (iii) purpose of the loan or project description, (iv) location of the project, including the country, (v) amount, (vi) length of payback period, (vii) terms, (viii) amount paid pack to date?
Response
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. The sovereign loans program, SLP, has not issued any loans since it was announced in the federal budget on February 1, 2018, and launched publicly in July 2019. Potential sovereign loans have been identified for the SLP. As these are still under consideration for approval, further information is not yet available.
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 139--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what was the total amount spent on administration in fiscal years (i) 2018-19, (ii) 2019-20; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by line item; (c) what is the total amount of expenditures on infrastructure projects in fiscal years (i) 2018-19, (ii) 2019-20; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by project; and (e) what are the details of each expenditure on infrastructure projects during fiscal years 2018-19 and 2019-20, including (i) on what date was the money was actually spent or transferred, (ii) amount of expenditure, (iii) vendor or recipient of transfer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 140--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s International Assistance Innovation Program and the $900 million announced in Budget 2018 for the program: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided through the program since February 1, 2018; and (b) what are the details of all funding recipients, including (i) date the funding was transferred or provided, (ii) date of the announcement, if applicable, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description, (v) location of the project, including the country, (vi) amount, (vii) type of funding (grant, loan guarantee, equity, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 97--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to flights on government aircraft for personal and non-governmental business by the Prime Minister and his family, and by ministers and their families, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all such flights, including the (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) names of passengers, excluding security detail; and (b) for each flight, what was the total amount reimbursed to the government by each passenger?
Response
(Return tabled)
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 Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-11-23 16:04
Expand

Question No. 126--
Ms. Nelly Shin:
With regard to spending on stock photographs or images by the government since December 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each contract or expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) details and duration of the contract, (iv) date, (v) number of photographs or images purchased, (vi) where were the photographs or images used (Internet, billboards, etc.), (vii) description of advertising campaign, (viii) file number of the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 127--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to government expenditures on membership fees, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since December 1, 2019: (a) how much money has been spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) name of the organization or vendor, (ii) date of purchase, (iii) amount, (iv) number of memberships purchased?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 129--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Steveston—Richmond East, between January 2019 and October 2020: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the applicant, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether the funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (viii) project description or purpose of funding; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Steveston—Richmond East that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Steveston—Richmond East by recipients tasked with subgranting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 130--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the electronic format of documents provided through the Access to Information and Privacy Act and the government’s digital government strategy: (a) which institutions still provide large files, such as those too large for transmission via email, to the individual making the request using CDs or DVDs; (b) for those institutions that use a different format, such as e-post or USB sticks, for providing large files to the individual making the request, which format is used; (c) does each institution in (a) plan on transitioning to a format that does not require an optical disc drive, and, if so, what are the details, including the timeline; and (d) of the computers and laptops purchased by the government in the past two years, approximately what percentage of the (i) computers, (ii) laptops, contained an optical disc drive required to read CDs or DVDs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 132--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to Service Canada Centres: (a) which centres have reopened to the public since the shutdown in March 2020, and what was the reopening date for each location; and (b) what is the projected reopening date for each of the locations still closed to the public, broken down by location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 135--
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
With regard to Canadian drone technology being used by the Azerbaijani military after being exported through Turkey: (a) why did the government reinstate export permits of military equipment to Turkey in the spring of 2020; (b) were there any assurances provided to the government that the exported military equipment would not be used against Armenia and, if so, what are the details of any such assurances; (c) what are the details of all military equipment exported to Turkey to January 1, 2019, including (i) supplier, (ii) description of equipment, including volume, (iii) value, (iv) intended purpose of equipment, as written on the application; and (d) what are all details of any documents, including correspondence, sent or received by the Minister of International Development or her office relating to military exports, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipients, (iv) title, (v) format (memorandum, email), (vi) file number, (vii) summary of content?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 136--
Mr. Marc Dalton:
With regard to the Canadian government's reaction to the report from the United Kingdom's National Cyber Security Centre and Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre, which indicated that Huawei 5G technology could put national security at risk: (a) has the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security conducted its own Huawei risk assessment, and, if so, what were the results; and (b) has any other government department or agency conducted a risk assessment in relation to Huawei, and, if so, what are the details, including the scope of the assessment and the results?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 137--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the government’s Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles program and the purchase and lease incentives which came into effect on May 1, 2019: (a) how many vehicle purchases have qualified for the incentive; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by make and model; (c) what is the total amount paid out to date under the program; and (d) what is the breakdown of how much has been paid out by (i) manufacturer, (ii) dealership, including the location and name of each dealership?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 115--
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to the government’s campaign to make Bill Morneau the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: (a) what is the current budget for the campaign; (b) what are the costs incurred to date, broken down by item; (c) what are the projected costs, broken down by item; (d) how many government officials have been assigned duties in relation to the campaign; (e) what are the duties that each of the officials in (d) have been assigned, broken down by title of the official; and (f) what are the details of any contracts signed in relation to the campaign, including (i) vendor, (ii) date and duration, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided?
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. With regard to part (a) of the question, as is the case in campaigns for leadership positions in multilateral organizations, the government will provide diplomatic support, advocacy and strategic advice to advance Mr. Morneau’s candidacy. This support will be cost-effective and consistent with relevant Treasury Board guidelines and policies. As the OECD secretary-general selection process is just beginning, it is not yet possible to estimate the total costs that may be incurred to support Canada’s nominee, particularly in the current context given the global health situation.
With regard to part (b), so far, the campaign has incurred $6,265.76 in hospitality costs to support outreach with OECD member delegates and other OECD-related representatives based in Paris. These expenses reflect standard diplomatic practices, including for such selection processes.
With regard to part (c), as of the date of this request, the department is working on the projection of costs for the secretary-general campaign, which will be aligned with the costs normally associated with campaigns for high-level international positions where member countries put forward candidates.
With regard to part (d), the department has not assigned any officials exclusively for the purposes of the OECD secretary-general campaign. Nevertheless, as the lead department responsible for the relationship with the organization, a number of officials in the department and at the permanent delegation of Canada to the OECD are providing support with respect to the campaign in line with their regular duties.
With regard to part (e), the duties of strategic policy advice, advocacy and support will be carried out by the assistant deputy minister, strategic policy; director general, international economic policy; director, international economic relations and strategy; deputy director, OECD unit, international economic relations and strategy; policy adviser, international economic relations and strategy; policy analyst, international economic relations and strategy; Ambassador, Canada’s permanent delegation to the OECD; deputy permanent representative, permanent delegation to the OECD; counsellor, permanent delegation to the OECD; counsellor, permanent delegation to the OECD; program officer, permanent delegation to the OECD; and strategic communications and program officer, permanent delegation to the OECD.
The duties of communications advice and support will be carried out by the director general, strategic communications; director, strategic communications foreign policy; director, media relations; and senior communications adviser.
The duties of coordination of diplomatic outreach will be carried out by the director, official visits, office of protocol; visits coordinator, office of protocol; and visits officer, office of protocol.
With regard to part (f) of the question, there have been no contracts signed in support of the campaign to date.

Question No. 117--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the Wet’suwet’en Nation and TC Energy’s Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline project: what are the details of all in-person and virtual consultations and meetings conducted by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Northern Affairs or the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, the Wet'suwet'en elected chiefs and councillors, and the Wet'suwet'en people, and all First Nations along the path of the pipeline, between August 1, 2018, to present, including, for each in-person or virtual consultation or meeting, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name and title of the First Nations, groups, organizations or individuals consulted, (iv) recommendations that were made to the ministers?
Response
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is concerned, the response is as follows. With regard to TC Energy’s Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline project, consultations were not conducted by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or the Minister of Northern Affairs or the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, as this is a provincially regulated pipeline.

Question No. 120--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the contract signed between Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Nathan Cullen (Reference Number: C-2019-2020-Q4-00124): (a) was $41,000 the final value of the contract, and, if not, what was the final value; (b) what was the start and end date of the contract; (c) what specific services did Mr. Cullen provide in exchange for the payment; and (d) was the $41,000 just for Mr. Cullen’s services, or did that amount cover other costs, and, if so, what is the itemized breakdown of which costs the payment covered?
Response
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the original estimated contract cost was $41,000, including taxes. The final value of the contract is $21,229.11, including taxes.
With regard to part (b), the start date was February 24, 2020, and the end date was March 17, 2020.
With regard to part (c), the scope of work in the contract defined the following services: discussions between representatives for Canada, British Columbia and the Wet’suwet’en Nation with regard to the establishment of a negotiation process to advance the recognition and reconciliation of Wet’suwet’en aboriginal title and rights; specific interventions when political issues arise; in consultation with the federal team, provide strategic advice to the minister and senior departmental management; provide strategic advice to the federal team; attend engagement sessions and meetings at key times when highly sensitive issues are discussed and/or when important messages have to be delivered to the other parties; and meet with senior officials of CIRNAC.
With regard to part (d), the breakdown of the $41,000 was as follow in the contract: fees: $20,000; other expenses: $10,000; travel: $10,000; GST: $1,000. Payments of $21,229.11 were made against the contract and the details of the amounts paid, final value, are as follows: fees: $16,000; other expenses: $4,980.10; travel: $0; GST: $249.01. “Other expenses” include, but are not limited to, food for participants and conference boardroom charges for the event at the hotel.

Question No. 121--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to government statistics on the impact of the various measures taken during the pandemic on the mental health of Canadians: (a) has the government conducted any specific studies or analysis on the mental health impacts of the various measures put into place by various levels of government (self-isolation, social distancing, business closures, etc.); and (b) what are the details of all such studies, including (i) who conducted the study, (ii) general findings, (iii) which measures were analyzed, (iv) findings related to each measure, (v) where results were published, if results were made public?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes that COVID-19 has resulted in varying degrees of stress for many Canadians who may not have ready access to their regular support networks. That is why the government is funding an online portal of psychosocial supports.
This new portal, called Wellness Together Canada, makes it easier for Canadians to access free, credible information and services to address mental health and substance use issues. The portal also connects Canadians to peer support workers, social workers, psychologists and other professionals for confidential text sessions or phone calls.
The portal is available free to all Canadians in both official languages on a 24-7 basis. It is the result of a consortium of leaders in mental health and substance use care, including Stepped Care Solutions, Kids Help Phone and Homewood Health.
With regard to part (a), the Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, CSAR, is contributing funding or subject expertise to several studies to understand changes in mental health and mental illness among Canadians during the COVID-19 period. However, these are under way and not yet complete. They include the Survey on COVID-19 and Mental Health, SCMH; the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Ageing, CLSA, COVID-19 study; the Covid-19, Health and Social InteractiON in Neighborhoods, COHESION, study; and the COMPASS study of high school students in Ontario, Alberta, Quebec and British Columbia.
With regard to part (b)(i), the SCMH is being conducted by Statistics Canada. Results will be analyzed by the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC. The CLSA COVID-19 study is being led by principal investigators at McMaster, McGill and Dalhousie universities. The COHESION study is being led by researchers at the Université de Montréal and the University of Saskatchewan. PHAC researchers will be involved in future analyses. The COMPASS study is being led by researchers at the University of Waterloo. Some analyses will be conducted by graduate students funded by PHAC.
With regard to part (b)(ii), as these studies are currently under way, there are no findings that can be reported at present. Early findings from the CLSA COVID-19 study are anticipated by the end of 2020, early findings from the COHESION study are anticipated during the first quarter of 2021, and PHAC analyses of SCMH data will begin in February 2021, with the intention of making the results publicly available as soon as possible.
With regard to part (b)(iii), as these studies are currently under way, no analyses have been completed to date.
With regard to part (b)(iv), see response for part (b)(iii).
With regard to part, (b)(v), see response for part (b)(iii).

Question No. 123--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance program: (a) what was original budget for the program; (b) what is the latest projected budget for the program; (c) what was the original expected number of businesses that would apply for the program; (d) what was actual number of businesses that applied for the program; (e) of the applications in (d), how many were successful; and (f) does the government have any statistics regarding what percentage of commercial property landlords whose tenants enrolled in the program accepted a 25 per cent reduction in rent, and, if so, what are the statistics?
Response
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the original budget for the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance, CECRA, program was $2.97 billion total combined from federal, provincial and territorial governments. This includes funding for forgivable loans disbursed and program administration costs.
In response to part (b), the projected budget for CECRA is $2.97 billion.
In response to part (c), 60,000 submissions by property owners was the original expected number of applications.
In response to part (d), as October 4, 2020, 74,774 applications had been received for the program from property owners. Each application represents one property with one or more impacted small business tenant.
In response to part (e) of the applications in (d), as of October 5, 2020, 59,404 applications by property owners were approved; 5,935 were under review.
In response to part (f), individual small business tenants did not directly enroll in the CECRA program. Rather, eligibility for CECRA was based on applications submitted by commercial property landlords on behalf of their eligible tenants. All property owners who enrolled in the program were required to provide a 25% rent reduction to their eligible tenants in order to be approved. Failure to comply with this program requirement would put the property owner in default of the loan agreement, and the loan would become repayable.
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 116--
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to the government’s approach to influenza immunization, also known as the flu shot or flu vaccine: (a) how many doses of the flu shot has the government procured or arranged for the 2020-21 flu season; (b) when are all the doses expected to be available and what is the expected timeline regarding how many doses will be available each month; (c) what are the details of any related procurement agreements or arrangements, including (i) date the agreement was signed, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount of doses, (iv) delivery date, (v) financial terms; (d) how many flu shot doses does the government project will be needed for the 2020-21 flu season; and (e) how many flu shot doses does the government project will be available for Canadians by (i) November 30, 2020, (ii) December 31, 2020?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 118--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the government’s commitment to bring high-speed Internet to Indigenous communities in the 2016, 2018 and 2019 federal budgets: (a) what are the total expenditures on this commitment since April 1, 2019; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by project, including (i) name of community, (ii) description of project, (iii) projected cost of project, (iv) total expenditures to date, (v) average Internet speed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 119--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the government missing the June 3, 2020, deadline to release a national action plan in response to the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: (a) what are the details of all in-person and virtual consultations conducted by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Minister of Indigenous Services, or the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, in relation to the development of a National Action Plan, including, for each consultation, the (i) date, (ii) location, if the consultation was in-person, (iii) name and title of the First Nations, groups, organizations or individuals consulted, (iv) recommendations that were made to the minister, (v) ministers and government officials in attendance; (b) what are the details of all in-person and virtual meetings between the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Minister of Indigenous Services, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and provincial or territorial governments, including for each meeting the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) recommendations that were made to the minister, (iv) provinces or territories represented; and (c) with regard to the consultations in (a) and (b), what is the (i) total of travel costs covered by the government, (ii) total of accommodation costs covered by the government, (iii) daily per diem rate to which stakeholders are entitled, (iv) total paid out in per diem?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 122--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to entry into Canada by individuals who are neither Canadian citizens nor residents, by air since the restrictions on travel into Canada by foreigners went into effect in March 2020: (a) what is the total number of foreigners who have entered Canada since the restrictions went into effect; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) month, (ii) passport issuing country, (iii) reason for admittance in Canada (diplomat, essential worker, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)
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. 79--
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to ministers and exempt staff members flying on government aircraft, including helicopters, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all such flights, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) which ministers and exempt staff members were on board?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 98--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the handling of cases and claims pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement by the Department of Justice Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: how much has been spent on settled cases, requests for direction, and other proceedings where Canada has been either the plaintiff or defendant before appellate courts (such as the Ontario Superior Court or the Supreme Court of British Columbia) related to survivors of St. Anne's Residential School between 2013 and October 1, 2020, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 99--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, between January 2019 and October 2020: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether the funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay by organizations tasked with subgranting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 100--
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regards to federal expenditures in the electoral district of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, broken down by fiscal years 2018-19 and 2019-20: what were the total amounts spent by the federal government, broken down by the (i) department or agency, (ii) community, (iii) contribution agreement, (iv) purpose of spending?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 101--
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to the Softwood Lumber Action Plan announced on June 1, 2017, broken down by department or agency and contribution agreement: (a) what companies, organizations or communities have received funding; (b) how much has been received by each community, company or organization; (c) for what purpose has each contribution been used; (d) for each community, company or organization, how many people have been assisted; (e) have all of the original $867 million dollars been expended, and, if not, how much remains to be expended; and (f) have additional funds been allocated to this action plan or under other government initiatives to assist those negatively impacted by the tariffs put in place by the United States?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 105--
Ms. Christine Normandin:
With regard to the activities of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) during the pandemic: (a) for each of the IRB’s four divisions, broken down by month and for the Eastern, Central and Vancouver divisions, how many hearings were held during the months of April to September in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (b) broken down by month, how many refugee protection claims eligible for file review were processed during the months of April to August in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (c) between April and August 2020, how many members, as a percentage, received their full pay; (d) what work was required for members working for the IRB; (e) on what date did the IRB Registry and mail room resume processing claims received by mail and fax; (f) as of March 16, 2020, how many Refugee Protection Division (RPD), Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), Immigration Division (ID) and Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) files were pending (backlog) and what was the average time between referral and decision; (g) to date, how many RPD, RAD, ID and IAD files are awaiting a hearing; (h) to date, what is the average time between referral and decision; and (i) how many IRB employees have had vacation leave since the resumption of operations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 106--
Ms. Christine Normandin:
With regard to the activities of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) during the pandemic: (a) broken down by month, how many confirmations of permanent residence were issued during the months of April to August in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (b) broken down by month, how many visas (tourist, student, etc.) were issued during the months of April to August in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (c) to date, how many IRCC officers, as a percentage, received the necessary information equipment (telephones, computers, etc.) to enable them to work from home; (d) how many refugee protection claims were received by IRCC between March 17, 2020, and July 31, 2020, and of these, how many were referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB); and (e) what is the current processing time for permanent resident cards, and what was the processing time for the same period in 2019?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 107--
Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie:
With regard to federal public servants living in the National Capital Region (NCR): (a) how many public servants worked in the NCR between 2010 and 2019, inclusively, broken down by year and province of residence, and what percentage of public servants (i) lived in Quebec but worked in Ontario, (ii) lived in Ontario, but worked in Quebec, (iii) lived and worked in Ontario, (iv) lived and worked in Quebec; (b) for each year between 2010 and 2019, inclusively, what percentage of the public service payroll is represented by the wages of federal public servants living in the NCR and working in (i) Ontario, (ii) Quebec; and (c) for each year between 2010 and 2019, inclusively, what is the mother tongue of federal public servants living in the NCR and the language most often spoken at work, broken down by province of (i) residence, (ii) work?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 109--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the organization and structure of the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): (a) what was the organizational structure of PHAC, including a breakdown of how many employees or full-time equivalents (FTEs) working in each branch, location and in each position, as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) October 1, 2020; and (b) what are the details of the positions that have been eliminated or modified since January 1, 2016, including the (i) previous job title, (ii) new job title, if applicable, (iii) previous job description, (iv) new job description, (v) number of positions impacted, (vi) date position was eliminated or modified, (vii) number of previous positions eliminated, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 110--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to drug products currently awaiting approval and market authorization by Health Canada: (a) what is the complete list of products currently awaiting approval; (b) for each product in (a), what was the (i) date the application was received by the government, (ii) manufacturer, (iii) product name, (iv) summary of product claims, including the list of diseases and conditions the product claims to treat, (v) expected date of decision of approval by Health Canada, if known; and (c) has the time period between the date of application and the decision date by Health Canada, for non-COVID-19 related products increased as a result of reallocating resources during the pandemic, and, if so, what are the specific details, including for which applications and for which products the time period has increased?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 112--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to the organization and structure of Health Canada: (a) what was the organizational structure of Health Canada, including a breakdown of how many employees or full­time equivalents (FTEs) working in each branch, location, and in each position, as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) October 1, 2020; and (b) what are the details of the positions that have been eliminated or modified since January 1, 2016, including the (i) previous job title, (ii) new job title, if applicable, (iii) previous job description, (iv) new job description, (v) number of positions impacted, (vi) date position was eliminated or modified, (vii) number of previous positions eliminated, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 113--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the decision by VIA Rail to layoff workers during the pandemic: (a) what is the total number of workers laid off since March 1, 2020; (b) what is the number of layoffs broken down by date; (c) on what date did the minister responsible for VIA Rail become informed of plans for each of the layoffs in (b); (d) why did VIA Rail not use the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) to prevent the layoffs; (e) will VIA Rail management and executives continue to receive bonuses in light of the layoffs; (f) what is the total amount of bonus money paid out so far in 2020; and (g) what is the total amount VIA Rail has received so far in 2020 through (i) CEWS, (ii) other sources of government funding, broken down by source?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 2--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the public consultation for the new five-dollar banknote launched by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada on January 29, 2020 (which ended on March 11, 2020): (a) how many nomination submissions were made nominating a Canadian to appear on the next five-dollar banknote; (b) of the nomination submissions made for a Canadian to appear on the next five-dollar banknote, what names were submitted for consideration; (c) of the names listed in (b), how many nominations did each name receive; (d) based on the analytics software installed or run on the Bank of Canada website and server, how many individuals visited the consultation form listed on the Bank of Canada website between January 29, 2020, and March 11, 2020?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Bank of Canada received 52,971 names during the January 29 to March 11, 2020, public call for nominations, resulting in 625 qualified submissions.
With regard to part (b), the 625 qualified nominees can be found at the following link: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/banknotes/banknoteable-5/nominees/.
With regard to part (c), the information is unavailable. The Bank of Canada does not collect information on the number of nominations received for each name.
With regard to part (d), the information is unavailable. The consultation form is not hosted on the Bank of Canada's website. However, the bank can report that 44,485 individuals submitted one or more names to the public call for nominations between January 29, 2020, to March 11, 2020.

Question No. 5--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy: (a) what is the number of employers who have received the subsidy; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) sector, (ii) province; (c) what are the total government expenditures to date through the subsidy; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) sector, (ii) province?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, parts (a) to (c), the latest information on the total amount of the Canada emergency wage subsidy expended is available on the Government of Canada website under “Claims to Date–CEWS” at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics.html.
The CRA captures CEWS information regarding the total approved claims broken down by province or territory where the applicant resides, by industry sector and by size of applicant, by period beginning in May 2020, rather than in the manner requested above. The latest information, updated on a monthly basis, is available on the Government of Canada website under “CEWS Claims–Detailed Data” at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics/stats-detailed.html.

Question No. 15--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to government contracts entered into by the member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency, for the acquisition of architectural, engineering or other services required in respect of the planning, design, preparation or supervision of an international development assistance program or project valued between $98,000.00 and $99,999.99, 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 services or construction contracts, (v) file number?
Response
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), with regard to government contracts valued between $98,000 and $99,999.99, signed since January 1, 2016, the department’s delegation of financial and contracting signing authority delegates officers appointed to specific positions the authority to purchase services, in accordance with all applicable legislation, regulations, policies and directives.
Information on contracts for the time period requested is available under “Proactive Disclosure” at Open Government, https://open.canada.ca/en.

Question No. 16--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Atlantic Raven and the Atlantic Eagle: (a) how many Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) personnel are stationed on each ship by full-time equivalents; (b) how many hours per day while at sea are CCG personnel stationed on each ship; and (c) what are the costs for CCG personnel stationed on the tugs?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following information is for the time period of October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2020.
With regard to part (a), the number of Canadian Coast Guard personnel on board both Atlantic Raven and Atlantic Eagle varies per patrol. There are between one and six CCG employees stationed on each ship for a total of 3976.5 person-days or 10.9 person-years, to date.
With regard to part (b), each CCG employee lives on board and holds a twelve-hour shift while on board.
With regard to part (c), to date the Canadian Coast Guard has paid $206,778 on meals and quarters, and $294,620 on salaries for a total cost of $496,330 while CCG personnel are stationed on the tugs.

Question No. 17--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to personal protective equipment purchases since March 13, 2020: (a) what amount of supplies were ordered and prepaid for; (b) of the supplies in (a), how many units have yet to be received; (c) what amount of N95 or KN95 masks were ordered but deemed unacceptable by the Public Health Agency of Canada; (d) what was the dollar value associated with the masks mentioned in (c); (e) of the supplies in (c), were associated prepayment costs reimbursed to the buyer and if so, how much; (f) what is the dollar amount associated with each contract signed for N95, KN95, and surgical masks to date; and (g) what was the total prepaid to vendors for which no supplies were received or are not expected to be received?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since March, the Government of Canada has been engaged in an unprecedented effort to acquire supplies and equipment to ensure that our front-line health care workers, other essential services workers and Canadians stay safe and healthy. Throughout this pandemic, there has been a surge in global demand for the personal protective equipment, PPE, and medical supplies needed in response to COVID-19. As a result, the government has operated in a highly competitive market and faced risks posed by fragile international supply chains.
With regard to part (a), approximately 40% of PPE contracts have included a component of advanced payments. Such arrangements were necessary to ensure that Canada could secure access to supplies amidst intense international competition.
With regard to part (b), the most recent update on quantities ordered and received is available on PSPC's website at https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/comm/aic-scr/provisions-supplies-eng.html.
The quantities ordered for personal protective equipment and medical supplies are intended to meet short-term needs and anticipate Canada’s long-term needs as we continue to respond to COVID-19, while preparing for any eventuality over the coming months. “Quantities received” includes the approximate number of products that have been shipped and are in transit or have arrived at a Government of Canada warehouse. Some contracts are multi-year in nature with delivery scheduled beyond March 2021.
The information released will be adjusted over time as the procurement environment evolves.
With regard to part (c), a total of 9.5 million KN95 respirators did not meet Government of Canada technical specifications for healthcare settings.
With regard to part (d), in order to support the negotiating position of the Government of Canada, this information cannot presently be disclosed.
With regard to part (e), negotiations are still taking place between the Government of Canada and the supplier.
With regard to part (f), as part of our commitment to transparency and accountability, we are publicly disclosing contracting information to the fullest extent possible. Supplier names and contract amounts for contracts entered into on behalf of other government departments for PPE and medical or laboratory equipment and supplies can be found on our COVID-19 contracting information page at https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/comm/aic-scr/contrats-contracts-eng.html. The information released will be adjusted over time as the procurement environment evolves.
With regard to part (g), all suppliers are expected to deliver on their contracts.

Question No. 19--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the COVID-19 Supply Council: what are the costs associated with the council, broken down by (i) salary top-ups and or additional pay for an individual sitting on the council, (ii) hospitality expenses, (iii) travel expenses broken down by type, (iv) in-person meeting facilities, (v) service reimbursements like Internet expenses, taxi or Uber costs, (vi) per diem expenses, (vii) incidentals?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of September 23, 2020, there have been no costs associated with the COVID-19 supply council. Members volunteer their time and meetings are held by video conference.

Question No. 33--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the government’s decision not to exclude costs associated with grain drying from the carbon tax: (a) why did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food say that the impact of these costs on farmers is “not that significant”, and what specific evidence does the minister have to back up this claim; (b) what is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s definition of “not that significant”; (c) what are the government’s estimates on how much revenue will be received yearly from the carbon tax on grain drying, for each of the next five years; and (d) has Farm Credit Canada conducted any analysis or studies on the impact of this tax on the income of farmers, and, if so, what were the findings of any such analysis or studies?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding part (a), according to data provided by provincial governments and industry groups, the estimated cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying increases the costs of farm operations by between 0.05% and 0.38% for an average farm.
Costs of drying grain will vary depending upon farm size, location, province, fuel used, grain type and other factors. Costs will also vary from year to year, with 2019 being wetter than usual in many provinces and, therefore, translating into higher than normal grain drying expenditures.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, obtained estimates of the cost of drying grains, which have either been publicly released or which have been provided to AAFC by external sources, including producer organizations and provincial governments.
Each of these groups arrived at estimates of the cost of grain drying and of carbon pollution pricing associated with this activity using different underlying assumptions, which makes direct comparisons difficult. AAFC standardized the various estimates to arrive at more comparable results. For grain and oilseed farms, the average per-farm cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying was $210 in Alberta, $774 in Saskatchewan, $467 in Manitoba and $750 in Ontario.
Note that the analysis received from Alberta was based on their estimates of what the carbon pollution price would cost in the province. On June 1, 2019, Alberta repealed their own provincial carbon price fuel levy, and the federal fuel charge came into force on January 1, 2020. Therefore, Alberta farmers did not pay a federal carbon pollution price on their fuels used for grain drying during harvest in 2019.
AAFC provided further context to these estimates by relating them to information on net operating expenses. To do this, AAFC calculated the share of the cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying to overall net operating expenses for an average farm in each of the four provinces mentioned above. Net operating costs refer to all expenses, other than financing expenses and income taxes, incurred in the normal course of business, including cost of goods sold, selling and administrative expenses, and all other operating expenses. Data on net operating expenses was obtained from Statistics Canada’s agricultural taxation data program, or ATDP, which includes unincorporated and incorporated tax filer records used to estimate a range of financial agricultural variables. The financial variables disseminated by the ATDP include detailed farm revenues and expenses as well as farm and off-farm income of farm families.
Relating the estimates above to the value of net operating costs implies that the average per-farm cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying in 2019 was 0.05% of net operating costs in Alberta, 0.18% in Saskatchewan, 0.10% in Manitoba and 0.38% in Ontario.
Some variation still remains despite standardization. The estimates for Alberta and Saskatchewan are based on historical averages and, therefore, could be considered estimates for an average year in those provinces. The estimates for Manitoba and Ontario are based on 2019, a wet year, and therefore could be considered estimates for a year with higher-than-normal moisture levels.
AAFC assessed the costs of the federal carbon pollution pricing fuel charge in 2018. That assessment is publicly available at: https://multimedia.agr.gc.ca/pack/pdf/carbon_price_presentation-eng.pdf.
Regarding part (b), the above results show that the estimated costs of carbon pollution pricing to oilseed and grain farms amount to less than 0.5% of net operating expenses for 2019. This is for a hypothetical average farm. The financial impact on individual farms will depend on a myriad of factors, including the quantity of grain harvested, the type of grain produced, the share of grain drying done on farm versus at the elevator, the fuel used in grain drying, prices of fuel and the moisture level of crop at harvest, among other individual farm factors.
In addition, the agriculture sector receives significant relief under the federal carbon pollution pricing system compared to other sectors of the economy. The federal carbon pollution pricing system includes relief for farm activities that represents a significant part of the total cost of production that would otherwise impact their competitiveness. Thus, gasoline and diesel fuel used by farmers for agricultural activities is exempt from the fuel charge, and biological emissions, for example, from livestock, manure and fertilizer application, are not priced. Recognizing that greenhouse heating fuel consumption for year-round operations represents a significant cost of production, the system also provides significant relief of 80% for natural gas and propane used by commercial greenhouse operators. Natural gas and propane use for heating, for barns and grain drying, are not exempted under the federal fuel charge as it was not considered a significant cost of production for an average grain and oilseed farm.
Regarding part (c), the purpose of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by ensuring that carbon pollution pricing applies broadly throughout Canada.
All direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system are returned to the jurisdiction of origin. In Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the majority of the direct proceeds from the federal fuel charge are returned directly to households through climate action incentive payments.
AAFC assessed the costs of the federal carbon pollution pricing fuel charge in 2018. That assessment is publicly available at https://multimedia.agr.gc.ca/pack/pdf/carbon_price_presentation-eng.pdf.
Regarding part (d), Farm Credit Canada has not conducted analysis or studies on the impact of the carbon pollution pricing on the income of farmers.

Question No. 35--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the government's 2019 election commitment to plant 2 billion trees: (a) how many trees have been planted to date; (b) what is the breakdown of the number of trees planted to date by (i) province, (ii) municipality or geographical location; (c) what are the total expenditures to date related to the tree planting project; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by item or type of expenditure?
Response
Mr. Paul Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is fully committed to delivering on its commitment to plant two billion trees over the next 10 years.
At this time, Natural Resources Canada is working closely with other government departments, including Environment and Climate Change Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Parks Canada Agency to develop a comprehensive approach for implementing the government’s plan to plant two billion trees. The government is also collaborating with provinces and territories, municipalities, indigenous partners and communities, non-governmental organizations, industry, the private sector, landowners, researchers and other stakeholders to move this initiative forward.
Existing federal programs are already supporting tree planting, with approximately 150 million seedlings expected to be planted by 2022 through the low carbon economy fund, working with provinces and territories, as well as trees planted through the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, working with communities. The Government of Canada also continues to support the Highway of Heroes tree campaign, which has planted more than 750,000 of a planned two million trees between Trenton and Toronto.
As part of its commitment to supporting Canada’s forests and forest sector, the Government of Canada took early action in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing up to $30 million to small and medium-sized forest sector firms, including tree planting operations, to defray the costs associated with COVID-19 health and safety measures. This funding helped ensure a successful 2020 tree planting season and the planting of an estimated 600 million trees, while protecting workers and communities.
The Government of Canada is also adapting the investing in Canada infrastructure program to respond to the impacts of COVID-19. The program, delivered through bilateral agreements with provinces and territories, is being adjusted to add some flexibilities, expand project eligibility and accelerate approvals. A new temporary COVID-19 resilience stream, with over $3 billion available in existing funding, has been created to provide provinces and territories with added flexibility to fund quick-start, short-term projects that might not otherwise be eligible under the existing funding streams. The new stream will support projects such as: disaster mitigation and adaptation projects, including natural infrastructure; flood and fire mitigation; and tree planting and related infrastructure.

Question No. 46--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Canadians living in Hong Kong: (a) how many Canadian citizens or permanent residents are currently registered as living in Hong Kong; (b) how many Canadian citizens or permanent residents has GAC confirmed are currently in Hong Kong; (c) what is the government’s best estimate of the total number of Canadian citizens and permanent residents currently residing in Hong Kong; and (d) on what date and what data did the government use to come up with the number in (c)?
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.
Regarding parts (a) to (d), presently, there are 4,208 Canadians who have registered with the voluntary registration of Canadians abroad service in Hong Kong. As registration with the service is voluntary, this is not a complete picture of the total number of Canadians in Hong Kong.
Global Affairs Canada does not maintain statistics on the total number of Canadian citizens or permanent residents in a specific country or territory. According to a survey led in 2011 by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, an estimated 295,930 Canadians were living in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region at that time.

Question No. 48--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to revenue collected from the federal carbon tax: (a) excluding any rebates, what is the total amount of revenue collected by the government from the carbon tax or price on carbon since January 1, 2017; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) year, (ii) province; (c) what is the total amount of GST collected on the carbon tax since January 1, 2017; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) year, (ii) province?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 270 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, GGPPA, the Minister of the Environment must table a report in Parliament annually with respect to the administration of the act. The inaugural edition of the “GGPPA Annual Report” is expected to be published in December 2020, including details of proceeds collected and how they were disbursed.
Under the GGPPA, the federal carbon pollution pricing system has two parts: a regulatory charge on fuel, or federal fuel charge; and a regulatory trading system for industry, the federal output-based pricing system, OBPS.
Consumers do not pay the fuel charge directly to the federal government. Fuel producers and distributors are generally required to pay the fuel charge and, as a result, the price paid by consumers on goods and services would usually have the costs of the fuel charge embedded. Registered OBPS industrial facilities will not generally pay the fuel charge on fuels that they purchase. Instead, OBPS facilities are subject to the carbon pollution price on the portion of emissions above a facility emissions limit. The GGPPA requires that the direct proceeds from carbon pricing be returned to the jurisdiction of origin.
With respect to reporting on the federal fuel charge, the “GGPPA Annual Report” will include a financial summary of fuel charge proceeds assessed, by province and territory, for the first full year that the fuel charge was in effect, April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. During this period, the federal fuel charge applied at a rate of $20 per tonne, as of April 1, 2019, in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; as of July 1, 2019, in Yukon and Nunavut; and, as of January 1, 2020, in Alberta. The federal government has proposed to stand down the federal fuel charge in New Brunswick, as of April 1, 2020, as the province introduced a provincial tax on carbon-emitting products that meets the federal benchmark stringency requirements.
The OBPS came into effect January 1, 2019. Unlike the fuel charge, however, assessments are done on an annual basis. Due to the impact of COVID-19 on reporting, the government extended the due date for reporting under the OBPS system in respect of the 2019 compliance year from June 1, 2020 to October 1, 2020. The final assessed values of proceeds due to the OBPS for this first compliance year, therefore, are not expected to be available until after the publication of the first edition of the “GGPPA Annual Report”.
The question requests information since January 1, 2017. No proceeds would arise from either the OBPS or federal fuel charge in calendar years 2017 or 2018, as these two systems did not come into effect until January 1, 2019 and April 1, 2019, respectively.
With respect to the goods and services tax, GST, the GST is levied on the final amount charged for a good or service. Under the GST, businesses are required to report and remit to the Canada Revenue Agency the total amount of GST collected on all goods and services they supply during a reporting period and do not report the GST collected in respect of specific goods and services or embedded costs.

Question No. 61--
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
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), most of the salmon were removed from the pens prior to the escape event, and the rest of the farm was harvested following the fire. Mowi recovered and harvested 1,177 fish from within the predator netting at the Robertson Island site following the incident. Mowi did not recapture any escaped Atlantic salmon that left the site. It is widely believed that the escaped fish have been eaten by sea lions and other predators in the area. As per the company’s condition of licence, the reporting of the fish escape to DFO occurred within 24 of the discovery event.
With regard to (b), there have been no reports of recaptured fish. At the request of the ‘Namgis First Nation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, issued a scientific licence for up to three gillnets to recapture escaped Atlantic salmon from December 26 to December 29, 2019. Despite these efforts, no Atlantic salmon or other fish were caught during that time. Subsequently, the ‘Namgis First Nation requested another scientific licence to continue recapture efforts. This licence was issued from December 30, 2019 to January 3, 2020. However, no fish were recaptured.
With regard to (c), it is unknown whether any of the escaped fish were infected with Piscine orthoreovirus, PRV.
With regard to (d), the federal government has not provided any funding to assist with the recapture. However, DFO regional staff have engaged Mowi and stakeholders in the area to develop a strategic coordinated plan for monitoring.
With regard to (e), the federal government has not provided any compensation to Mowi pertaining to this escape event.

Question No. 63--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the government's ethical apparel policy PN-132 and contract clause A3008C, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many times has the contract clause been breached by companies doing business with the government; (b) what are the details of each instance where a breach occurred, including (i) the date that the government advised the vendor that they were in breach, (ii) vendor, (iii) brand names involved, (iv) summary of breach; (c) for each instance in (b), did the government terminate the contract or issue a financial penalty to the vendor, and, if so, what are the details and amounts of the penalties; (d) how many investigations have been conducted to ensure compliance with PN-132, and, of those, how many vendors were found to be (i) in compliance, (ii) not in compliance; (e) does the policy consider ethical procurement certification for contracting below the first-tier subcontractor level; (f) what specific measures has the government taken, if any, to ensure that all vendors, including any contractors or sub­contractors of such vendors, are in compliance with the policy; (g) what specific measures, if any, has the government taken to ensure that any products produced by forced labour camps, and specifically the forced Uyghur labour camps in China, are not purchased by the government; (h) what is the government's policy, if it has one, in relation to the termination of contracts in cases where a second-, third-, or any level below the first-tier subcontractor are found to be noncompliant with PN-132; (i) what is the total number of employees or full-time equivalents assigned to ensure compliance with the ethical apparel policy; and (j) for each employee in (i), what percentage of their job has been assigned to investigate or ensure compliance?
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. With regard to parts (a) to (d), presently, there are 4,208 Canadians who have registered with the voluntary registration of Canadians abroad service in Hong Kong. As registration with the service is voluntary, this is not a complete picture of the total number of Canadians in Hong Kong.
Global Affairs Canada does not maintain statistics on the total number of Canadians citizens or permanent residents in a specific country or territory.
According to a survey led in 2011 by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, an estimated 295,930 Canadians were living in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, SAR, at that time.

Question No. 64--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to what the Prime Minister describes as the "due diligence" conducted by government officials in relation to the original decision to have the WE organization or WE Charity administer the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG): (a) how many officials were involved in conducting the due diligence; (b) who conducted the due diligence; (c) who was in charge of overseeing the due diligence process; (d) did the due diligence process examine WE's recent corporate governance or financial issues; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, why did the officials still recommend that WE be chosen to administer the CSSG; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why were such issues not examined in the due diligence process; and (g) on what date did the due diligence process in relation to WE (i) begin, (ii) end?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, officials from ESDC explained in several appearances before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance that contribution agreements are regularly used by the government to further policy objectives and engage a wide diversity of skills and resources outside the government.
ESDC began discussions in early May 2020 with WE Charity. Prior to entering into the contribution agreement, ESDC assessed the organization’s eligibility and capacity to deliver a project against the terms and conditions of a program or initiative and the policy objectives and parameters of the Canada student service grant, CSSG; considered WE Charity’s standing, including its completion of projects, results achieved and good financial standing on previous projects, by reviewing past projects where WE Charity received funding for project delivery from ESDC; and articulated clauses in the contribution agreement on accountability and results to mitigate any risks associated with the project development.
ESDC also outlined financial controls in the contribution agreement to govern the organization’s appropriate use of funds, by including the following: payment clauses to advance funds based on project activities and to minimize the potential of overpayment; interest clauses requiring that any interest earned be either directed towards the project or returned to the Crown; repayment clauses governing the return of ineligible expenditures or funds that were not used for the project; project records, reporting and audit clauses holding the funding recipient accountable, allowing the department to track project progress, document results, provide financial accounting and track compliance; and a requirement for audited financial statements to reconcile expenditures at the end of the project.
Given the nature and amount of the agreement, due diligence was performed at all levels by employees and management within the skills and employment branch, program operations branch, chief financial officer branch and legal services branch within ESDC from the time negotiations on the contribution agreement commenced on May 5, 2020.

Question No. 65--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to Transport Canada’s (TC) announcement on November 1, 2017, to improve local maritime situational awareness and reduce marine traffic congestion through the Oceans Protection Plan, specifically with respect to the $500,000 national Anchorages Initiative (NAI) to “bring together government, the marine industry, Indigenous peoples and stakeholder communities to develop a sustainable national anchorage framework”: (a) in terms of subject matter, what areas of research has TC contracted, and who are the vendors; (b) who is currently directing the NAI and which of TC's federal and regional offices reports to the said director; (c) what concrete governmental actions, as a result of the NAI, can be expected by the initiative’s estimated completion date of fall 2020; (d) which First Nations peoples and affected West Coast communities (i) have been consulted, (ii) have arrangements for NAI consultations in place; and (e) at the present date, how much of the $500,000 budget allocated for the NAI remains unspent?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the World Maritime University completed three comparative research studies for Transport Canada. These studies examined the impacts of anchoring and related mitigation measures, technologies and practices; the demand for anchoring outside the jurisdiction of major public ports in Canada; and international approaches to the management and oversight of anchorages outside the jurisdictions of major public ports.
With regard to part (b), the anchorages initiative is led by Transport Canada’s marine policy directorate in the national capital region.
With regard to part (c), Transport Canada will consult on a proposed approach to clarifying the governance and management of anchorages outside current port boundaries, with a view to mitigating socio-environmental impacts while promoting economic efficiency. As part of this work, best practices for the behaviour of large vessels at anchor will be advanced.
Given the impacts of COVID-19 on timelines and the need to ensure effective consultations with indigenous groups and other key stakeholders, the anchorages initiative will continue its work through to the end of the five-year mandate of the oceans protection plan.
With regard to part (d)(i), the following first nations peoples and affected west coast communities have been engaged: Snuneymuxw First Nation, Stz'uminus First Nation, Cowichan Tribes, Halalt First Nation, Lake Cowichan First Nation, Lyackson First Nation, Penelakut Tribe, Tseycum First Nation, Pauquachin First Nation, Tsartlip First Nation, Tsawout First Nation, Malahat First Nation, Tsawwassen First Nation, Cowichan Nation Alliance, Coast Salish Development Corporation, Islands Trust, Gabriolans Against Freighter Anchorages Society, Anchorages Concern Thetis, Cowichan Bay Ship Watch Society, Plumper Sound Protection Association, Protection Island Neighborhood Association, Stuart Channel Stewards, Saltair Ocean Protection Committee and Lady Smith Anchorage Watch.
In addition, the anchorages initiative participated in the following oceans protection plan engagement sessions attended by first nations, industry, government and community groups: Pacific Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Winter 2020, Vancouver, B.C., January 30, 2020; North Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Fall 2018, Prince Rupert, B.C., November 22, 2018; Oceans Protection Plan Presentation to Comité de concertation sur la navigation, Bécancour, Quebec, October 30, 2018; South Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Fall 2018, Vancouver, B.C., October 22, 2018; South Coast Oceans Protection Plan Indigenous Workshop Spring 2018, Nanaimo, B.C., May 8-9, 2018; Atlantic Region Oceans Protection Plan Day with Indigenous Groups and Industry, St. John’s, NFLD, March 28, 2018; South Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Spring 2018, Vancouver, B.C., March 20-21, 2018; North Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Spring 2018, Prince Rupert, B.C., March 8-9, 2018; Atlantic Oceans Protection Plan Day with Indigenous Groups, Moncton N.B., January 26, 2018; Oceans Protection Plan Presentation at the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Commercial Fisheries Conference, Moncton N.B., January 25, 2018; Atlantic Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Dartmouth, N.S., June 19, 2018; Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Quebec, Quebec, June 12, 2018 ; Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Quebec, Quebec, November 7-8, 2017; Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Vancouver, B.C., November 2, 2017.
With regard to part (d)(ii), additional engagement with indigenous groups and west coast communities will be undertaken once a proposed approach to the governance and management of anchorages is confirmed. No dates have been set at this point.
With regard to part (e), at the present date, the $500,000 budget allocated for the NAI has been spent.

Question No. 78--
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the Clean Fuel Standard: (a) was a cost-benefit analysis of implementing such a regime conducted, and if not, why not; and (b) if such analysis was conducted, what are details including (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) when was it conducted, (iii) what were the national results, (iv) what were the provincial or territorial results, (v) what is the website address of where analysis results were published, if applicable, (vi) if results were not published online, what is the rationale for not releasing the results?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the proposed clean fuel standard regulations are on track to be published in Canada Gazette, part I in fall 2020, followed by a 75-day comment period. A regulatory impact analysis statement, which includes a cost-benefit analysis, will accompany the publication of the draft clean fuel standard regulations in Canada Gazette, part I. The cost-benefit analysis will provide an opportunity to engage with provinces, territories and stakeholders on, among other elements, the regional and sector economic impacts of the regulations.
Since the announcement of the clean fuel standard in 2016, there has been significant engagement on the design of the regulations. This has included engagement on the compliance pathways, including assumptions around technology update and costs.
In February 2019, Environment and Climate Change Canada released the Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework for the Clean Fuel Standard for comment. The framework can be found at www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/energy-production/fuel-regulations/clean-fuel-standard/cost-benefit-analysis-framework-february-2019.html.
Most recently, an update to the framework was provided in June 2020.

Question No. 85--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to government employees working from home during the pandemic, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total number of employees whose primary work location was, prior to the pandemic (or as of January 1, 2020), (i) in a government building or office space, (ii) at a home office or private residence, (iii) other, such as outdoor or travelling; (b) what is the total number of employees who worked from a government building or office space as of (i) April 1, 2020, (ii) July 1, 2020, (iii) September 28, 2020; (c) what is the total number of employees who worked from a home office or private residence as of (i) April 1, 2020, (ii) July 1, 2020, (iii) September 28, 2020; (d) what is the number of employees who initially were advised or instructed to work from home during the pandemic; (e) how many of the employees in (d) have since returned to work in a government building or office space, and when did they return, broken down by how many employees returned on each date; (f) of the employees in (d), how many were able to (i) complete all or most of their regular employment duties from home, (ii) some of their regular employment duties from home, (iii) few or none of their regular employment duties from home; (g) how many employees were provided with or had access to government laptop computers or similar type devices so that they could continue performing their regular employment duties from home during the pandemic; and (h) how many employees, who were advised or instructed to work from home during the pandemic, were not provided or had access to a government laptop or similar type of device while working from home?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to supporting employees, whether physically in the workplace or at home. Together and apart, the government will continue to deliver information, advice, programs and services that Canadians need.
The Government of Canada continues to take exceptional measures to curb the COVID-19 pandemic and to protect the health and safety of its employees. The vast majority of public servants are working, either remotely or on site, to continue effectively delivering key programs and services to Canadians under these unprecedented circumstances.
Public health authorities have signalled that physical distancing requirements must remain in place. This means that many public service employees will continue to work remotely, and effectively, for the foreseeable future. Decisions regarding access to worksites are being made based on government-wide guidance and take into consideration the local public health situation and the nature of the work. Access to federal worksites for employees varies from organization to organization, based on operational requirements.
The physical and psychological health and safety of employees remain an absolute priority for the Government of Canada. As many parts of the country are seeing a resurgence in cases, the Government of Canada continues to be guided by the decisions of public health authorities, including Canada’s chief public health officer, and the direction of provinces/territories and cities. While the COVID-19 pandemic presents ongoing challenges for Canadians and for the public service, the government has been moving collectively and successfully towards managing COVID-19 as part of its ongoing operations and the continued delivery of key programs and services to Canadians.

Question No. 87--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the government's firearms prohibitions and buyback program: (a) did the government conduct, either internally or externally, any analysis on the impacts of alternative mechanisms to address firearms related crimes; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each such analysis, including (i) the alternate mechanism analyzed, (ii) who conducted the analysis, (iii) the date the analysis was provided to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, (iv) findings, including any associated cost projections?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on May 1, 2020, the Government of Canada announced the immediate prohibition of over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms that are specifically designed for soldiers to shoot other soldiers. The prohibition limits access to the most dangerous firearms and removes them from the Canadian market.
For decades, police chiefs had been advocating for such a measure. In 1986, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, CACP, declared there was a “worldwide surplus” of accessible firearms that were designed for warfare and for the federal government to “take the steps necessary to end this increase in available weapons.” In 1994, the CACP declared that “military assault rifles” were produced for the “sole purpose of killing people in large numbers” and urged the Minister of Justice to enact legislation to “ban all military assault rifles except for law enforcement and military purposes.” Last September, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police declared their support for a prohibition on all military-designed assault rifles. In their view, “these weapons have no place in our communities and should be reserved for use by Canada’s military and law enforcement.” Additionally, the current chief of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has declared that this prohibition “finds balance” as it “ensures the safety of our members” while not limiting “those that recreationally participate in hunting or those that actually live off the land.”
Between October 2018 and February 2019, the government held extensive public engagement on the issue of banning handguns and assault-style firearms with the provinces and territories, municipalities, indigenous groups, law enforcement, community organizations and industry to help inform policy, regulations and legislation to reduce violent crime involving firearms. While the engagement was framed by the examination of a potential ban, the discussion explored several potential measures to reduce violent crime including enhanced enforcement capacity for law enforcement and border services, investments to support initiatives that reduce violence, and strengthening safe firearms storage requirements to help prevent theft. Many participants expressed that a ban on assault-style firearms was needed in order to protect public safety.
We put in place an amnesty to give existing owners time to come into compliance with the law. The amnesty order also provides a temporary exception for indigenous persons exercising section 35 constitutional rights to hunt and for sustenance hunters to allow for continued use of newly prohibited firearms, if previously non-restricted, until a suitable replacement can be found. The government remains committed to introducing a buyback program during the amnesty period. However, the costs associated with implementing a buyback program have not yet been finalized.
While the prohibition was a crucial initiative, it was only the first step in the government’s gun control agenda. The government also intends to bring forward targeted measures to further address the criminal use of firearms. We will strengthen firearms storage requirements to deter theft. Following hundreds of millions of dollars cut by the previous Conservative government, we will continue to make the necessary investments to enhance our tracing capacity and reduce the number of guns being smuggled across the border. We will continue to also work with our partners from other levels of government to develop an approach to address handguns.
The government also intends to build on previous investments in youth and community measures, because we know that better social conditions lead to a reduction in crime and violence.
These initiatives were identified as a priority by our government, both in the throne speech and in the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and we are committed to addressing these important issues as soon as possible.

Question No. 88--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the firearms regulations and prohibitions published in the Canada Gazette on May 1, 2020, and the proposed gun buyback program: (a) what is the total projected cost of the buyback program, broken down by type of expense; (b) is the projected cost a guess, or did the government use a formula or formal analysis to arrive at the projected cost; and (c) what are the details of any formula or analysis used by the government in coming up with the projected cost?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government remains committed to introducing a buyback program that offers fair compensation to affected owners and businesses, while making sure implementation and management costs of such a program are well priced and sustainable. To assist in meeting this dual objective, Public Safety is seeking to obtain professional services through a competitive process for the provision of advice on options and approaches to further inform ongoing efforts to develop a buyback program. Specifically, this advice would focus on firearms pricing models, as well as on the design, implementation and management of a buyback program for recently prohibited firearms.
As such, the costs associated with implementing and managing a buyback program have not been finalized yet and will be further refined in the coming months as program design development work progresses. Public Safety, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, and its partners are looking at a range of options, and will work with the provinces and territories to get this right for law-abiding gun owners and businesses.