Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 121
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2022-05-19 10:24
Expand

Question No. 456—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Air Force's CF-188 Hornet or CF-18 aircraft: (a) what have been the total costs related to aircraft maintenance on the CF-18 since 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) type of expense; (b) what are the projected costs to maintain the CF-18 aircraft, broken down by fiscal year from present until 2032-33; (c) how much has been spent on improvements, either directly for or related to the jets, including (i) radar improvements, (ii) communications gear, (iii) equipment, (iv) other expenditures, broken down by fiscal year since 2016; and (d) what are the projected costs of improvements, either directly for or related to the CF-18 aircraft, broken down by fiscal year and type of improvement, from the present fiscal year until 2032-33?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 458—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to changes in government policies, regulations, and taxation measures that came into effect on April 1, 2022, broken down by department and agency: what are the details of all these changes, including, for each, (i) what the change was, (ii) the reason for the change, (iii) the costs or projected costs associated with the change, (iv) the additional revenue or loss projected for the government over the next five years, broken down by year, as a result of the change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 459—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to vehicles owned, rented or leased by the government, since 2016, broken down by year and by department, agency or other government entity: (a) how many parking tickets, or similar types of citations, were received by government vehicles; (b) what was the cumulative amount of fines of the parking tickets referred to in (a); (c) how many of the parking tickets referred to in (a) were paid for by the government; (d) what is the total amount paid by the government for parking violations; (e) why did the government pay for the tickets in (c) rather than the government employee or other individual who parked illegally; (f) how many traffic tickets, or similar types of citations, were received by the government, including those received by mail or email, such as from red-light cameras or speeding cameras; (g) what was the cumulative amount of fines of the traffic tickets referred to in (f); (h) how many of the traffic tickets referred to in (f) were paid for by the government; (i) what is the total amount paid by the government for traffic violations; (j) why did the government pay for the tickets in (i) rather than the government employee or other individual who committed the traffic violation; and (k) what is the policy regarding who pays the (i) parking ticket, (ii) traffic ticket, when it is unclear who committed the infraction?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 460—
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the government’s procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, including boosters: (a) how many doses has the government procured, broken down by the year the doses are, or were, scheduled to be delivered, from 2020 through 2028; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by manufacturer and specific vaccine; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) by the number of doses intended for (i) domestic use, (ii) foreign use through COVAX, (iii) other foreign use?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2022-05-13 12:27
Expand

Question No. 440—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government in 2016: (a) how much money has been allocated to the departments of (i) Transport, (ii) Fisheries and Oceans, (iii) Environment and Climate Change, under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (b) how much money has been spent under the OPP by the departments of (i) Transport, (ii) Fisheries and Oceans, (iii) Environment and Climate Change, since 2016, broken down by year and program; (c) how much money from the OPP has been allocated to the Whales Initiative, since 2016, broken down by year; (d) how much money has been spent under the OPP on the Whales Initiative since 2016; (e) 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; and (f) 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. 443—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to government expenditures with Amazon since January 1, 2020, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total value of expenditures, broken down by year; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 444—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to expenditures on public relations or media training, or similar type of services for ministers or their offices, including the Office of the Prime Minister, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of each such expenditure, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) individual providing the training, (v) summary of services provided, including the type of training, (vi) person who received the training, (vii) date of the training?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 445—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to government procurement and contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to ministers since January 1, 2018: (a) what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work, (v) value of the contract; and (b) in the case of a contract for speechwriting, what is the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event, at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered, (iv) number of speeches to be written, (v) cost charged per speech?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 446—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to expenditures made by the government since October 1, 2020, 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 the goods or services provided, including the volume, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 426—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Departmental Plan and Departmental Results Report from Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and the indicator listed in the reports tracking the "Number of influencers reached through Canadian-hosted events": (a) how many events have taken place where influencers have been reached since January 1, 2020; (b) what are the details of the events in (a), including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) total expenditures, (iv) itemized breakdown of the expenditures, (v) number of influencers reached, (vi) names of the influencers reached; and (c) what criteria does GAC use to determine if an individual is considered an influencer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 427—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to research projects located outside of Canada that received government funding since January 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all such projects, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) date the funding was provided, (iii) amount of funding, (iv) country the research is taking place in, (v) project description, including the topics and the type of research, (vi) start and end dates of the research, (vii) country, (viii) municipality, (ix) program under which the funding was provided; and (b) for all the projects in (a) which are completed, what are the findings or the website location where the findings can be viewed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 428—
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to the government’s Wellness Together Canada portal and the related PocketWell application: (a) how many unique accounts have been created, broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) gender; (b) how many unique visits have been made to the site since the portal was launched, broken down by month; (c) how many Canadians have fully completed the course of treatment; (d) what has been the total cost of each of the programs or services identified through the portal and the application; (e) what is the total operating cost for the portal and the application; (f) what provisions are in place to provide identity theft protection to those impacted by data leaks related to the portal or the application; and (g) what is the budget for the identity theft protection provisions in (f)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 429—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Safe Return to Class Fund, since its inception, broken down by province and territory: (a) what is the total amount allocated through this fund; (b) what is the total amount received by each province and territory every month; and (c) what accountability measures exist to ensure that students, educators, and other school staff benefit from this fund?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 430—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to provincial and territorial requests for assistance in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020, broken down by province and territory: (a) what was the nature of each request received by the government; (b) of the requests in (a), was the government able to meet the request in full; and (c) of the requests in (b) that were not fully met, what was the reason the government could not fulfill the request?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 432—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the development of a national suicide prevention action plan since May 8, 2019: (a) what resources have been provided to establish culturally appropriate community-based suicide prevention; (b) what guidelines have been established since 2019 for best practices in suicide prevention; (c) what resources have been provided toward the creation of a national public health monitoring program for the prevention of suicide and identification of groups at elevated risk; (d) what progress has been made to identify and fill gaps in knowledge relating to suicide and its prevention; (e) what progress has been made in creating national standards for training persons engaged in suicide prevention; (f) what progress has been made in creating a national online hub to provide essential information and guides related to suicide prevention; (g) what analysis has been done of high-risk groups of people and the risk factors specific to these groups; and (h) when will preparations for the implementation of the national action plan, including a statistical overview of suicide in Canada, be tabled in Parliament?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 434—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to transcriptions or transcripts procured by the government since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department or agency: (a) what is the (i) date of the proceeding or event, (ii) location of the proceeding or event, (iii) description or summary of the proceeding or event, (iv) main participants speaking at the proceeding or event, (v) subject matter of the proceeding or event, for each transcription prepared in this period; (b) what was the cost of each transcription in (a); (c) who requested each transcription in (a) be prepared; and (d) what was the total amount spent on transcriptions or transcripts, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 435—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the Canada training credit (CTC): (a) how much has the CTC cost the government, or is currently forecasted to cost, for (i) 2019–20, (ii) 2020–21, (iii) 2021–22, (iv) 2022–23, (v) 2023–24; (b) how do the actual costs, or currently forecasted costs, in (a) compare to the projections in budget 2019; (c) for any costs in (b) that are lower than the projections in budget 2019, why have the projections been revised for lower cost and lower uptake; (d) what is the breakdown by (i) age, (ii) federal income tax bracket, (iii) province, (iv) type of the two eligible educational institutions that tuition or other fees were paid to, (v) average refund received, (vi) median refund received, of the 400,000 individuals who claimed this credit in 2020 as referenced in part 4 of the Department of Finance’s “Report on Federal Tax Expenditures - Concepts, Estimates and Evaluations 2022”; (e) how much has been spent by government departments or agencies to administer the CTC since 2019; (f) what is the number of employees directly or indirectly involved in the administration of the CTC; (g) how much has been spent by government departments or agencies to advertise or otherwise promote the CTC since 2019; and (h) what is the breakdown of (g) by type of advertising or promotion?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 437—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the government's response to question Q-306 and its reference to the 40 individuals, associations and organizations who were sent the email to promote the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS): (a) what are the names of these 40 individuals, associations and organizations; (b) how were they chosen; and (c) which ones responded to the email indicating an interest in sharing information about the NSS?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

Question No. 306—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the decision by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) to recruit social media influencers to promote the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS): (a) how many influencers were sent recruiting requests or similar types of communication by PSPC; (b) what formula or rate is used to determine how much each influencer will receive in compensation for promoting the NSS; (c) what is the total budget for the social media campaign; (d) how many influencers have signed agreements with the government related to the campaign; (e) are the influencers required to have any type of disclaimer on their social media post mentioning that they are being paid by the government, and, if not, why not; (f) what are the start and end dates of the social media campaign; and (g) what are the names and social media handles of the influencers who have signed agreements with PSPC related to the NSS, broken down by platform (Twitter, lnstagram, TikTok, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Bardish Chagger Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bardish Chagger Profile
2022-05-09 15:22
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petition e-3821, titled “National Defence and Military Operations”. The initiator of this petition and a few supporters from the riding of Waterloo shared concerns directly with me. They also shared the importance of the emissions reduction plan, fighting climate change and their hope for transition toward a green care economy and future.
Collapse
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2022-04-25 15:29
Expand

Question No. 358—
Ms. Louise Chabot:
With regard to the latest reclassification of the Living Cost Differential for Cap-aux-Meules for federal public servants, which is part of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive: what are the details of the latest review process conducted by Statistics Canada, including the (i) raw statistical data used in the calculation, (ii) results used in the calculation, (iii) emails exchanged by the Statistics Canada officials responsible for these calculations, (iv) data analysis papers with the results?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 359—
Ms. Louise Chabot:
With regard to the consultations that Employment and Social Development Canada held on the Disability Inclusion Action Plan from June 4, 2021, to September 30, 2021: (a) what are the details of the consultation process, including the (i) number of participants, (ii) selection process for participants, (iii) complete schedule of the consultations, (iv) department’s briefing notes for each of these meetings; and (b) what are the details of the findings and analyses on the themes of (i) financial security, (ii) employment, (iii) disability-inclusive spaces, (iv) a modern approach to disability?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 360—
Ms. Louise Chabot:
With regard to the special COVID-19 benefits for self-employed workers, as of January 31, 2021: (a) for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB) and the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB), what is, for each benefit, the (i) total amount granted in dollars, (ii) number of workers that used the benefit, (iii) average length of the benefit, in weeks, broken down by gender and by province; and (b) what is the (i) number of workers who used CERB and/or CRB, CRB and/or CRSB, CRSB and/or CRCB, (ii) average length of the combined benefits, in weeks, (iii) number of workers who used combined benefits, broken down by gender and by province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 366—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the Emergency Measures Regulations: (a) what public assemblies were considered to be breaches of the peace, under section 2, and what was the extent of the areas, under section 4, where travel was prohibited; (b) were any foreign nationals exempted by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, under paragraph 3(2)(f), from the prohibition on entering Canada with an intent to participate in or facilitate an unlawful assembly and, if so, who and what assembly were they participating in or facilitating; (c) were any persons granted permission by the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, under paragraph 4(3)(a), to (i) travel to or within an area where an unlawful assembly was taking place, (ii) cause a minor to travel to or within 500 metres of an area where an unlawful assembly was taking place, and, if so, who, broken down by (i) and (ii); (d) were any places designated by the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness as protected places, under paragraph 6(f), and, if so, (i) what or where were they, (ii) what were the dates the designation was effective, (iii) how were they secured; (e) were any goods and services requested by the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness or the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, under section 7, and, if so, to whom were the requests directed and, with respect to each request, what goods or services were requested; (f) what are the details of all compensation paid under subsection 9(1); (g) what are the details of all claims for compensation made under subsection (2) and Part V of the Emergencies Act; and (h) were any charges laid in relation to breaches of the regulations and, if so, who was charged and for what offences?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 368—
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the government’s requirements as a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the government’s Emergency Economic Measures Order SOR/2022-20: (a) did the government adhere to the section of the ICCPR which states that “Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations”; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details including (i) the date, (ii) who was notified, (iii) who provided the notification, (iv) how was the notification provided; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why was notification not provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 369—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to the official position of the government of Canada, stated in budget 2021 “A Recovery Plan For Jobs, Growth and Resilience”, that since 2015, the federal government and federal agencies have made $6.1 billion available for universal broadband: how much of the $6.1 billion has been allocated to projects that improved broadband for Canadians living in the areas with postal codes beginning and ending in (i) L0R 1A0, (ii) L0R 1C0, (iii) L0R 1H0, (iv) L0R 1J0, (v) L0R 1K0, (vi) L0R 1P0, (vii) L0R 1R0, (viii) L0R 1T0, (ix) L0R 1V0, (x) L0R 1W0, (xi) L0R 1X0, (xii) L0R 1Z0, (xiii) L0R 2B0, (xiv) L8J, (xv) L9G, (xvi) L9H, (xvii) N0B 1L0, (xviii) N0B 2J0, (xix) N1R 8B2?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 372—
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the government's response to the Log4J software vulnerability made public in December of 2021, and broken down by department, agency and Crown corporation: (a) which departments, agencies, and Crown corporations took their web services off-line in response to the vulnerability and which specific web services were taken off-line; (b) for how many days were each of the web services off-line; (c) which web services still remain off-line and what is the expected date when each service will be restored online; (d) what specific measures have been taken to date to neutralize the threat of Log4J; and (e) for each service that was off-line, where were users redirected to in order to access the services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 373—
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the confirmation of the declaration of emergency pursuant to the Emergencies Act: did the Prime Minister consider the recorded division in the House of Commons on February 21, 2022, to confirm the declaration of a public order emergency proclaimed on February 14, 2022, to be a matter of confidence?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 376—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the distribution of rapid tests for COVID-19 to the provinces and territories: (a) how many rapid tests were distributed to each province or territory, broken down by month since March 2020; (b) what is the total number of rapid tests distributed; (c) what is the breakdown of the number of rapid tests distributed that were (i) manufactured in Canada, (ii) imported from outside of Canada; and (d) of the imported rapid tests, what is the breakdown of the number of tests by country of origin?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 377—
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the carbon tax fuel charge: (a) how much has the federal government collected in revenues from the carbon tax fuel charge; and (b) how much has it paid out to households in rebates for that same carbon tax fuel charge since it first came into effect?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 379—
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the designation of protected places in downtown Ottawa in February 2022, provisioned under the Emergency Measures Regulations: broken down by start and end date, which paragraph of section 6 of the Emergency Measures Regulations was used to designate as a protected place the (i) block bounded by Wellington, Bay, Sparks, Albert and Commissioner streets and Bronson Avenue (including the Garden of the Provinces and Territories and Bronson Park), (ii) block bounded by Wellington, Sparks and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (iii) block bounded by Wellington, Kent and Sparks streets and Lyon Street North, (iv) block bounded by Wellington, Bank, Sparks and Kent streets, (v) block bounded by Wellington, O'Connor, Sparks and Bank streets, (vi) block bounded by Wellington, Metcalfe, Sparks and O'Connor streets, (vii) block bounded by Wellington, Sparks and Metcalfe streets and the southbound lanes of Elgin Street, (viii) block bounded by Wellington Street, the northbound lanes of Elgin Street and the southbound lanes of Elgin Street (including the National War Memorial), (ix) block bounded by Elgin and Albert streets, the Rideau Canal and Mackenzie King Bridge (including the National Arts Centre), (x) block bounded by Sparks, Bay and Queen streets and Bronson Avenue, (xi) block bounded by Sparks, Queen and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (xii) block bounded by Sparks, Kent and Queen streets and Lyon Street North, (xiii) block bounded by Sparks, Bank, Queen and Kent streets, (xiv) block bounded by Sparks, O'Connor, Queen and Bank streets, (xv) block bounded by Sparks, Metcalfe, Queen and O'Connor streets, (xvi) block bounded by Sparks, Elgin, Queen and Metcalfe streets, (xvii) block bounded by Queen, Bay and Albert streets and Bronson Avenue, (xviii) block bounded by Queen, Albert and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (xix) block bounded by Queen, Kent and Albert streets and Lyon Street North, (xx) block bounded by Queen, Bank, Albert and Kent streets, (xxi) block bounded by Queen, O'Connor, Albert and Bank streets, (xxii) block bounded by Queen, Metcalfe, Albert and O'Connor streets, (xxiii) block bounded by Queen, Elgin, Albert and Metcalfe streets, (xxiv) block bounded by Albert, Bay and Slater streets and Bronson Avenue, (xxv) block bounded by Albert, Slater and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (xxvi) block bounded by Albert, Kent and Slater streets and Lyon Street North, (xxvii) block bounded by Albert, Bank, Slater and Kent streets, (xxviii) block bounded by Albert, O'Connor, Slater and Bank streets, (xxix) block bounded by Albert, Metcalfe, Slater and O'Connor streets, (xxx) block bounded by Albert, Elgin, Slater and Metcalfe streets, (xxxi) block bounded by Albert and Slater streets and the northbound lanes of Elgin Street, (xxxii) block bounded by Slater and Bay streets, Laurier Avenue West and Bronson Avenue, (xxxiii) block bounded by Slater and Bay streets, Lyon Street North and Laurier Avenue West, (xxxiv) block bounded by Slater and Kent streets, Laurier Avenue West and Lyon Street North, (xxxv) block bounded by Slater, Bank and Kent streets and Laurier Avenue West, (xxxvi) block bounded by Slater, O'Connor and Bank streets and Laurier Avenue West, (xxxvii) block bounded by Slater, Metcalfe and O'Connor streets and Laurier Avenue West, (xxxviii) block bounded by Slater, Elgin and Metcalfe streets and Laurier Avenue West, (xxxix) block bounded by Slater and Elgin streets, Mackenzie King Bridge, the Rideau Canal and Laurier Avenue West (including Confederation Park), (xl) block bounded by Laurier Avenue West, Percy and Gloucester streets and Bronson Avenue, (xli) block bounded by Laurier Avenue West and Bay, Gloucester and Percy streets, (xlii) block bounded by Laurier Avenue West, Lyon Street North and Bay and Gloucester streets, (xliii) block bounded by Laurier Avenue West, Kent and Gloucester streets and Lyon Street North, (xliv) block bounded by Laurier Avenue West and Bank, Gloucester and Kent streets, (xlv) block bounded by Laurier Avenue West and O'Connor, Gloucester and Bank streets, (xlvi) block bounded by Laurier Avenue West and Metcalfe, Gloucester and O'Connor streets, (xlvii) block bounded by Laurier Avenue West and Elgin, Gloucester and Metcalfe streets, (xlviii) block bounded by Laurier Avenue West, Queen Elizabeth Driveway and Lisgar and Elgin streets (including Ottawa City Hall), (xlix) block bounded by Gloucester, Percy and Nepean streets and Bronson Avenue, (I) block bounded by Gloucester, Bay, Lisgar and Percy streets (including the projection of Nepean Street lying east of Percy Street), (Ii) block bounded by Gloucester, Nepean and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (Iii) block bounded by Gloucester, Kent and Nepean streets and Lyon Street North, (liii) block bounded by Gloucester, Bank, Nepean and Kent streets, (liv) block bounded by Gloucester, O'Connor, Nepean and Bank streets, (Iv) block bounded by Gloucester, Metcalfe, Nepean and O'Connor streets, (lvi) block bounded by Gloucester, Elgin, Nepean and Metcalfe streets, (lvii) block bounded by Nepean, Percy and Lisgar streets and Bronson Avenue, (lviii) block bounded by Nepean, Lisgar and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (lix) block bounded by Nepean, Kent and Lisgar streets and Lyon Street North, (Ix) block bounded by Nepean, Bank, Lisgar and Kent streets, (lxi) block bounded by Nepean, O'Connor, Lisgar and Bank streets, (lxii) block bounded by Nepean, Metcalfe, Lisgar and O'Connor streets, (lxiii) block bounded by Nepean, Elgin, Lisgar and Metcalfe streets, (lxiv) block bounded by Lisgar, Percy and Cooper streets and Bronson Avenue, (lxv) block bounded by Lisgar, Bay, Cooper and Percy streets, (lxvi) block bounded by Lisgar, Cooper and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (lxvii) block bounded by Lisgar, Kent and Cooper streets and Lyon Street North, (lxviii) block bounded by Lisgar, Bank, Cooper and Kent streets, (lxix) block bounded by Lisgar, O'Connor, Cooper and Bank streets, (lxx) block bounded by Lisgar, Metcalfe, Cooper and O'Connor streets, (lxxi) block bounded by Lisgar, Elgin, Cooper and Metcalfe streets, (lxxii) block bounded by Lisgar, Cartier, Cooper and Elgin streets, (lxxiii) block bounded by Lisgar, Cooper and Cartier streets and Queen Elizabeth Driveway, (lxxiv) block bounded by Cooper and Percy streets, Somerset Street West and Bronson Avenue, (lxxv) block bounded by Cooper, Bay and Percy streets and Somerset Street West, (lxxvi) block bounded by Cooper and Bay streets, Lyon Street North and Somerset Street West, (lxxvii) block bounded by Cooper and Kent streets, Somerset Street West and Lyon Street North, (lxxviii) block bounded by Cooper, Bank and Kent streets and Somerset Street West, (lxxix) block bounded by Cooper, O'Connor and Bank streets and Somerset Street West, (lxxx) block bounded by Cooper, Metcalfe and O'Connor streets and Somerset Street West, (lxxxi) block bounded by Cooper, Elgin and Metcalfe streets and Somerset Street West, (lxxxii) block bounded by Cooper, Cartier and Elgin streets and Somerset Street West, (lxxxiii) block bounded by Cooper and Cartier streets, The Driveway and Somerset Street West, (lxxxiv) block bounded by Cooper Street, Queen Elizabeth Driveway, Somerset Street West and The Driveway, (lxxxv) block bounded by Somerset Street West, Percy and MacLaren streets and Bronson Avenue, (lxxxvi) block bounded by Somerset Street West and Bay, MacLaren and Percy streets, (lxxxvii) block bounded by Somerset Street West, Lyon Street North and MacLaren and Bay streets (including Dundonald Park), (lxxxviii) block bounded by Somerset Street West, Kent and MacLaren streets and Lyon Street North, (lxxxix) block bounded by Somerset Street West and Bank, MacLaren and Kent streets, (xc) block bounded by Somerset Street West and O'Connor, MacLaren and Bank streets, (xci) block bounded by Somerset Street West and Metcalfe, MacLaren and O'Connor streets, (xcii) block bounded by Somerset Street West and Elgin, MacLaren and Metcalfe streets, (xciii) block bounded by Somerset Street West and Cartier, MacLaren and Elgin streets, (xciv) block bounded by Somerset Street West and MacDonald, MacLaren and Cartier streets, (xcv) block bounded by Somerset Street West, The Driveway and MacLaren and MacDonald streets, (xcvi) the block bounded by Somerset Street West, The Driveway, Queen Elizabeth Driveway and Waverley, Robert and Lewis streets, (xcvii) block bounded by The Driveway, Central Avenue and MacLaren Street, (xcviii) block bounded by Central Avenue, the westbound lanes of MacLaren Street and the eastbound lanes of MacLaren Street (including Golden Triangle Park), (xcix) block bounded by MacLaren, Percy and Gilmour streets and Bronson Avenue, (c) block bounded by MacLaren, Bay, Gilmour and Percy streets, (ci) block bounded by MacLaren, Gilmour and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (cii) block bounded by MacLaren, Kent and Gilmour streets and Lyon Street North, (ciii) block bounded by MacLaren, Bank, Gilmour and Kent streets, (civ) block bounded by MacLaren, O'Connor, Gilmour and Bank streets, (cv) block bounded by MacLaren, Metcalfe, Gilmour and O'Connor streets, (cvi) block bounded by MacLaren, Elgin, Gilmour and Metcalfe streets, (cvii) block bounded by MacLaren, Cartier, Gilmour and Elgin streets, (cviii) block bounded by MacLaren, MacDonald, Gilmour and Cartier streets, (cix) block bounded by MacLaren, Gilmour and MacDonald streets and Central Avenue, (cx) block bounded by Gilmour, Percy and James streets and Bronson Avenue, (cxi) block bounded by Gilmour, Bay, James and Percy streets, (cxii) block bounded by Gilmour, James and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (cxiii) block bounded by Gilmour, Kent and James streets and Lyon Street North, (cxiv) block bounded by Gilmour, Bank, James and Kent streets, (cxv) block bounded by Gilmour, Lewis and Bank streets and Derby Place, (cxvi) block bounded by Gilmour, O'Connor and Lewis streets and Derby Place, (cxvii) block bounded by Gilmour, Metcalfe, Lewis and O'Connor streets, (cxviii) block bounded by Gilmour, Elgin, Lewis, Frank and Metcalfe streets and Jack Purcell Lane (including the projections of Lewis Street and Waverley Street West lying east of Metcalfe Street, and Jack Purcell Park), (cxix) block bounded by Gilmour, Cartier, Lewis and Elgin streets (including Minto Park), (cxx) block bounded by Gilmour, Lewis and Cartier streets and Hartington Place, (cxxi) block bounded by Gilmour, MacDonald and Lewis streets and Hartington Place, (cxxii) block bounded by Gilmour, Lewis and MacDonald streets and Salisbury Place, (cxxiii) block bounded by Gilmour and Lewis streets, The Driveway and Salisbury Place,
(cxxiv) block bounded by James and Percy streets and Gladstone and Bronson avenues (including McNabb Park), (cxxv) block bounded by James, Bay, Florence and Percy streets, (cxxvi) block bounded by James, Florence and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (cxxvii) block bounded by James, Kent and Florence streets and Lyon Street North, (cxxviii) block bounded by James, Bank, Florence and Kent streets, (cxxix) block bounded by Lewis, O'Connor and Bank streets and Waverley Street West, (cxxx) block bounded by Lewis, Metcalfe and O'Connor streets and Waverley Street West, (cxxxi) block bounded by Lewis, Elgin and Waverley streets and Jack Purcell Lane, (cxxxii) block bounded by Lewis, Cartier, Waverley and Elgin streets, (cxxxiii) block bounded by Lewis, MacDonald, Waverley and Cartier streets, (cxxxiv) block bounded by Lewis, Roberts, Waverley and MacDonald streets, (cxxxv) block bounded by Florence, Bay and Percy streets and Gladstone Avenue, (cxxxvi) block bounded by Florence and Bay streets, Lyon Street North and Gladstone Avenue, (cxxxvii) block bounded by Florence and Kent streets, Gladstone Avenue and Lyon Street North, (cxxxviii) block bounded by Florence, Bank and Kent streets and Gladstone Avenue, (cxxxix) block bounded by Waverley Street West and O'Connor, Frank and Bank streets, (cxl) block bounded by Waverley Street West and Metcalfe, Frank and O'Connor streets, (cxli) block bounded by Waverley, Elgin and Frank streets and Jack Purcell Lane, (cxlii) block bounded by Waverley, Cartier, Frank and Elgin streets, (cxliii) block bounded by Waverley, MacDonald, Frank and Cartier streets, (cxliv) block bounded by Waverley, Robert, Frank and MacDonald streets, (cxlv) block bounded by Waverley, Frank and Robert streets and Queen Elizabeth Driveway, (cxlvi) block bounded by Frank, O'Connor and Bank streets and Gladstone Avenue, (cxlvii) block bounded by Frank, Metcalfe and O'Connor streets and Gladstone Avenue, (cxlviii) block bounded by Frank, Elgin and Metcalfe streets and Gladstone Avenue, (cxlix) block bounded by Frank, Cartier and Elgin streets and Gladstone Avenue (including St. Luke's Park), (cl) block bounded by Frank, Robert and Cartier streets and Delaware Avenue, (cli) block bounded by Frank and Robert streets and Queen Elizabeth Driveway, (clii) block bounded by Gladstone and Bronson avenues and Percy and McLeod streets, (cliii) block bounded by Gladstone Avenue and Bay, McLeod and Percy streets, (cliv) block bounded by Gladstone Avenue, Lyon Street North and McLeod and Bay streets, (clv) block bounded by Gladstone Avenue, Kent and McLeod streets and Lyon Street North, (clvi) block bounded by Gladstone Avenue and Bank, McLeod and Kent streets, (clvii) block bounded by Gladstone Avenue and O'Connor, McLeod and Bank streets, (clviii) block bounded by Gladstone Avenue and Metcalfe, McLeod and O'Connor streets, (clix) block bounded by Gladstone Avenue and Elgin, McLeod and Metcalfe streets, (clx) block bounded by Gladstone Avenue and Cartier, McLeod and Elgin streets, (clxi) block bounded by Delaware Avenue, Queen Elizabeth Driveway and McLeod and Cartier streets, (clxii) block bounded by McLeod, Percy and Flora streets and Bronson Avenue, (clxiii) block bounded by McLeod, Bay, Flora and Percy streets, (clxiv) block bounded by McLeod, Flora and Bay streets and Lyon Street North, (clxv) block bounded by McLeod, Kent and Flora streets and Lyon Street North, (clxvi) block bounded by McLeod, Bank, Flora and Kent streets, (clxvii) block bounded by McLeod, O'Connor and Bank streets and Argyle Avenue, (clxviii) block bounded by McLeod, Metcalfe and O'Connor streets and Argyle Avenue (including the Canadian Museum of Nature), (clxix) block bounded by McLeod, Elgin and Metcalfe streets and Argyle Avenue (including the First National Tree Day Memorial Park), (clxx) block bounded by McLeod, Cartier and Elgin streets and Park Avenue, (clxxi) block bounded by McLeod and Cartier streets, Queen Elizabeth Driveway and Argyle Avenue (including the projection of Park Avenue lying east of Cartier Street), (clxxii) block bounded by Park and Argyle avenues and Cartier and Elgin streets, (clxxiii) block bounded by Flora and Percy streets and Arlington and Bronson avenues, (clxxiv) block bounded by Flora, Bay and Percy streets and Arlington Avenue, (clxxv) block bounded by Flora and Bay streets, Lyon Street North and Arlington Avenue, (clxxvi) block bounded by Flora and Kent streets, Arlington Avenue and Lyon Street North, (clxxvii) block bounded by Flora, Bank and Kent streets and Arlington Avenue, (clxxviii) block bounded by Arlington and Bronson avenues and Percy and Catherine streets, (clxxix) block bounded by Arlington Avenue and Bay, Catherine and Percy streets, (clxxx) block bounded by Arlington Avenue, Lyon Street North and Catherine and Bay streets, (clxxxi) block bounded by Arlington Avenue, Kent and Catherine streets and Lyon Street North, (clxxxii) block bounded by Arlington Avenue and Bank, Catherine and Kent streets, (clxxxiii) block bounded by Argyle Avenue and O'Connor, Catherine and Bank streets, (clxxxiv) block bounded by Argyle Avenue and Metcalfe, Catherine and O'Connor streets, (clxxxv) block bounded by Argyle Avenue and Elgin, Catherine and Metcalfe streets, (clxxxvi) block bounded by Argyle Avenue, Queen Elizabeth Driveway and Catherine and Elgin streets, (clxxxvii) block bounded by Catherine and Percy streets, the Queensway (Highway 417) and Bronson Avenue, (clxxxviii) block bounded by Catherine, Bay and Percy streets and the Queensway (Highway 417), (clxxxix) block bounded by Catherine and Bay streets, Lyon Street North and the Queensway (Highway 417), (cxc) block bounded by Catherine and Kent streets, the Queensway (Highway 417) and Lyon Street North, (cxci) block bounded by Catherine, Bank and Kent streets and the Queensway (Highway 417), (cxcii) block bounded by Catherine, O'Connor and Bank streets and the Queensway (Highway 417), (cxciii) block bounded by Catherine, Metcalfe and O'Connor streets and the Queensway (Highway 417), (cxciv) block bounded by Catherine, Elgin and Metcalfe streets and the Queensway (Highway 417), (cxcv) block bounded by Catherine and Elgin streets, Queen Elizabeth Driveway and the Queensway (Highway 417), (cxcvi) lands lying between Queen Elizabeth Driveway and the Rideau Canal, lying between Laurier Avenue West and the Queensway (Highway 417), (cxcvii) other blocks or lands in or near the City of Ottawa not mentioned in (i) to (cxcvi), broken down by block or other description of land?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 380—
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the Treasury Board's Guide to Delegating and Applying Spending and Financial Authorities: (a) which departments and agencies maintain a log (or similar type of record) of violations or non­compliance related to the requirements set out in the guide; (b) for each department or agency in (a), how many entries have been entered in the log since January 1, 2021; and (c) what are the details of each entry, including the (i) date of the incident, (ii) summary of the violation or non-compliance, (iii) action taken as a result of the incident, (iv) financial value of the transaction related incident?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 383—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the one-time grant for Guaranteed Income Supplement recipients who received pandemic benefits being issued by Service Canada, broken down by province, region and constituency: (a) how many applications were received for the expedited manual payment offered ahead of April 19, 2022; (b) how many Canadians received the expedited manual payment offered ahead of April 19, 2022; (c) on what date was the expedited manual payment issued to each Canadian in (b); (d) how does the department define severe financial hardship; and (e) how many applications for the expedited manual payment were not approved, and why?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 384—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the processing of applications for a Secure Certificate of Indian Status by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), since 2021, broken down by province, region and constituency: (a) what are the (i) mean, (ii) median, (iii) minimum, (iv) maximum processing times, broken down by applications that met the service standard and applications that did not meet the service standard; (b) what metrics and processes does ISC use to ensure that service times are optimized; (c) how many incomplete applications were received; (d) how many of the applications in (c) were returned for completion to the applicant; and (e) of the applications in (d), what are the processing times?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 386—
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to the VIA Rail stations in Brockville, Smiths Falls, Alexandria, Kingston, Belleville, Cobourg, Oshawa, Port Hope, Gananoque, Napanee, St. Marys, Trenton, Wyoming, and Ingersoll, Ontario, and broken down by station: what are the details of all capital investments which have occurred at the station since 2010, including the (i) date of the investment, (ii) project completion date, (iii) project description, (iv) amount of the investment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 387—
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay:
With regard to the government's Defence Procurement Strategy: (a) is the government accelerating the delivery or completion dates of any military related procurement projects following the Russian invasion of Ukraine; and (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each project including, for each, the (i) value of the contract, (ii) vendor, (iii) original scheduled completion or delivery date, (iv) new expedited completion or delivery date, (v) project description, including items procured and number of units?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 388—
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for federal public servants: (a) how many employees have (i) been placed on unpaid administrative leave, (ii) had their employment terminated, as a result of not meeting the requirement; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) province or territory, (ii) each of the government's designated Employment Equity Groups, including women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 389—
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the acquisition or loss of ammunition and weapons by government departments and agencies since 2016, broken down by year: (a) what is the total amount spent on (i) ammunition, (ii) weapons, (iii) combined total of ammunition and weapons; (b) what are the details of all ammunition and weapons acquired including, for each purchase, the (i) type, (ii) model, (iii) description, (iv) number of units; and (c) what is the total amount of ammunition and weapons that were lost or stolen, including, for each instance, (i) the date, (ii) the description of items lost or stolen, (iii) whether the items were lost, (iv) whether the items were stolen, (v) whether the items were ever recovered, and, if so, when, (vi) the value of the items, (vii) the description of the incident, (viii) whether the incident was reported to law enforcement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 390—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to the National Indian Residential School Crisis Line and the Hope for Wellness Help Line, broken down by month and by line since January 2021: (a) what is the total number of calls received; (b) what is the total number of text messages received; (c) how many employees are (i) full time employees, (ii) part-time employees, (iii) temporary employees; and (d) what is the total funding allocated to the operations of the Crisis Line and Help Line?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 391—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to support given to the Bearskin Lake First Nation since they declared a state of emergency on December 28, 2021: (a) when was the Minister of Indigenous Services made aware of the state of emergency; (b) on what dates did the government receive requests for support; and (c) for each of the requests received in (b), (i) what was the nature of each request, (ii) was the government able to fulfill the request, and, if not, what was the reason for not meeting the request in full?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 392—
Mr. Rob Moore:
With regard to public servants who process requests filed under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (ATIP) since March 1, 2020, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity that is subject to these acts: (a) how many employees have been placed on "Other Leave With Pay", also known as code 699, at any point since March 1, 2020; (b) what is the cumulative number of days that were paid out under code 699, broken down by month; and (c) were the individuals on code 699 leave replaced, or did the individuals being on leave contribute to further delays in processing ATIP requests?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
8555-441-358 Living Cost Differential fo ...8555-441-359 Consultations on the Disabi ...8555-441-360 COVID-19 benefits for self- ...8555-441-366 Emergency Measures Regulations8555-441-368 Emergency Economic Measures ...8555-441-369 Broadband Internet8555-441-372 Government software vulnera ...8555-441-373 Confirmation of the declara ...8555-441-376 Distribution of rapid tests ...8555-441-377 Federal carbon tax8555-441-379 Emergency Measures Regulati ... ...Show all topics
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2022-04-25 15:29
Expand
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 31, 2022, by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman concerning the events reported in the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
First off, the Chair wishes to briefly describe the events that led to the member raising the question.
In June 2021, the committee presented its second report to the House. The report described the difficulties encountered during its study of the questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending. Subsequently, the 43rd Parliament was dissolved, which put an end to the business of the House and its committees. No action was taken by the House during the previous Parliament with respect to this report and the allegations found therein, including the question of privilege raised on June 10, 2021. Members may refer to the ruling of December 9, 2021, found at pages 953 and 954 of Debates for further context.
The Committee recently presented its third report, reiterating its support for the conclusions of the report from the previous parliament, which led the member from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman to raise his question of privilege. He argued that, while dissolution ended the orders for the appearance of witnesses, it did not allow the contempt that was allegedly committed to be purged. The presentation of the report would now allow the House to rule on these questions.
For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons responded that the orders of the previous parliament expired with its dissolution. He argued that, in order to raise a question of privilege, a committee should first order the appearance of witnesses during this Parliament, then those witnesses should refuse to appear and, finally, a report detailing this refusal should be presented. He said that the presentation to the House of a report from a previous parliament is not enough to trigger the process related to a question of privilege.
To deal with this issue, the Chair must determine whether the issues raised in the committee’s report warrant the House to be seized of the matter and give it priority over other business during a new Parliament.
Dissolution put an end to all business of the House and its committees. Consequently, the order adopted by the House on March 25, 2021, expired and the persons summoned to appear were relieved of their obligations. The order to appear from the previous Parliament mentioned in the committee’s report is no longer before the House.
The Chair has no doubt that the House or its committees can order a particular witness to appear. Any such order must be respected as long as it is in effect. However, a new question of privilege may not be raised regarding a failure to testify unless the witnesses fail to comply with a new order to appear adopted by the House or one of its committees during the current session.
The question that now arises is concerning the alleged contempt and dissolution's effect on it. Only the House can determine that contempt has been committed and decide to punish in accordance with its gravity as it sees fit. Until the House has ruled, the facts remain alleged.
As was mentioned previously, and in the ruling of December 9, 2021, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 81, “Instances of contempt in one Parliament may even be punished during another Parliament.”
This sentence is taken from an earlier edition of Erskine May, the procedural authority in the United Kingdom. However, the Chair would like to point out once again that the circumstances in which a question of privilege may be raised on an alleged case of contempt that occurred during a previous Parliament are much more limited than this quote suggests.
The rare instances in which this concept was invoked by my predecessors always involved incidents that were brought to the attention of the House for the first time in light of new facts. They were not a continuation of proceedings interrupted by dissolution.
A 1967 report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the U.K. House of Commons clearly illustrates the rare circumstances in which this concept could apply. It states, at page 95 of the report:
However flagrant the contempt, the House can only commit to the close of the existing session. If, however, the House consider that an offender, who has been released on Parliament being prorogued, has not been punished sufficiently, it may commit him again in the following session.
Thus, when an allegation of contempt is brought to the attention of the House, it must be dealt with during the session in which it was raised. Any sanction applied by the House is valid only until the end of the session. However, in the very specific case in which contempt was recognized by the House and punished, but prorogation or dissolution put a premature end to the punishment or sanctions, the House may decide to continue its efforts in the subsequent session to remedy it. The issue would not therefore be to reopen a discussion on the merits of the allegations raised in the previous parliament, but rather to decide to reimpose a sanction that had not been fully applied.
In the case before us, the issues raised in the committee’s third report do not constitute new facts. The report raises the same elements that were presented in June 2021. In fact, this third report, reiterating the committee’s second report from the previous Parliament, deals with the proceedings of the 43rd Parliament, which all ended with dissolution.
Since the House did not have the opportunity to decide on the merits of the alleged instances of contempt nor to reprimand them before dissolution, it now seems to be too late to do so in this new Parliament.
By itself, the presentation of the committee's third report is not sufficient to conclude that this question must have priority over other House business. Consequently, the Chair cannot conclude that there is a prima facie case of privilege and give it priority over other House business.
I thank the members for their attention.
Collapse
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, at the most recent G7 meeting, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government committed to eradicating forced labour from international supply chains. However, the Liberals still entered into a $222-million contract with Supermax, which has been linked to egregious acts of forced labour, and they signed a $250-million contract with Sinopharm, a communist state-owned company controlled by Beijing that is committing gross human rights violations against Uighurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners.
How can the Prime Minister justify these contracts, which are directly funding gross human rights violators?
Collapse
View Filomena Tassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to ensuring the highest ethical standards for government procurement and preventing human rights abuses, including forced labour in our supply chains.
With respect to Supermax, following allegations of forced labour from the supplier, we terminated all contracts with the supplier. In fact, as soon as we heard these allegations, we stopped shipments from entering Canada.
We are going to continue to monitor our supply chains closely and continue to work to ensure we are following the rigorous standards that Canadians expect.
Collapse
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 10th report, entitled “Special Examination Report—Public Sector Pension Investment Board”, and the 11th report, entitled “Securing Personal Protective Equipment and Medical Devices”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.
Collapse
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2022-04-05 10:09
Expand

Question No. 338—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Atlantic Seal Science Task Team: (a) how many meetings has the task team had since it was established in 2019; (b) what are the dates of each meeting; (c) what deliverables or accomplishments resulted from each meeting; (d) what specific input has been provided on the priorities of DFO's Atlantic seal science program; (e) what has resulted from the team's examining the application of technology advancements to seal research; (f) what measurable progress has been made on the objective of the team to increase the involvement of the fishing industry in seal science projects; and (g) what specific advice did the team provide on how DFO could better communicate its scientific findings to the fishing industry?
Response
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), as of March 15, 2022, the Atlantic seal science task team has met 15 times since it was convened in 2020.
In response to part (b), as of March 15, 2022, the Atlantic seal science task team met in 2020 on April 23, June 25, July 23 and October 15; in 2021 on February 23, March 12, April 15, May 11, July 15, October 12, November 12 and November 30; and in 2022 on February 2, February 8 and March 4. Deliverables or accomplishments of the task team are being captured in the Atlantic seal science task team report currently under development.
In response to all other parts of the question, input from the task team is being captured in the Atlantic seal science task team report currently under development.

Question No. 344—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to Canadian travellers re-entering Canada, provisioned under current or previously issued Orders in Council (OICs) related to minimizing the risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada (quarantine, isolation and other obligations): (a) how many Canadians have been denied entry, or were not able to enter into Canada due to arriving at a land border with a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of Order in Council (OIC) 2021-0075; (b) how many Canadians have been denied entry or were not able to enter into Canada due to arriving at a land border with another traveller who presented a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of OIC 2021-0075; (c) how many Canadians have been fined due to arriving at a land border with a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of OIC 2021-0075; (d) how many Canadians have been fined due to arriving at a land border with another traveller who presented a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of OIC 2021-0075; (e) did the responsible minister request a Charter Statement, or similar review, prior issuing OIC 2022-0042 or similar repealed OICs; (f) where can the published Charter Statement in (e) be found; and (g) what health-based assessment was conducted on the risks to Canadian travellers health and safety for requiring these travellers to quarantine in the United States versus quarantining at home; and (h) how frequently has this assessment been reviewed and where are the published results available?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) and (b) of the question, Canadian citizens, permanent residents of Canada or persons registered as an Indian under the Indian Act have right of entry into Canada. There is no provision to deny entry to Canadian citizens, permanent residents of Canada or persons registered as an Indian under the Indian Act for non-compliance with the Quarantine Act or associated orders in council.
In response to part (c), the Public Health Agency of Canada does not collect information regarding the citizenship of travellers that are issued fines. In total, 111 travellers have been fined due to arriving at a Canadian border with a recent positive COVID-19 test result. The monthly breakdown of fines issued since this requirement was introduced in January 2021 is as follows: January 2021, zero; February 2021, zero; March 2021, one; April 2021, three; May 2021, five; June 2021, three; July 2021, two; August 2021, six; September 2021, 13; October 2021, seven; November 2021, eight; December 2021, 31; January 2022, 30; and February 2022, two.
In response to part (d), no Canadians have been issued a fine due to arriving at a land border with another traveller who presented a positive test result, as this is not an offence under the Quarantine Act or associated orders in council.
In response to parts (e) and (f), charter statements are required to be provided for government bills that are being introduced in Parliament. Accordingly, given that the orders in council are by nature subordinate to legislation, charter statements would not be provided for the orders or similar instruments.
However, although the orders in council are not subject to the regulatory examination process under the Statutory Instruments Act, the Department of Justice reviews the orders using the criteria set out in subsection 3(2) of that act, in its capacity as legal adviser to the Clerk of the Privy Council. These criteria include a review of the orders for consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In response to parts (g) and (h), as set out in the Quarantine Act, the statutory purpose of the act is to protect public health by taking comprehensive measures to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases in Canada. The associated orders in council are also aimed at achieving this purpose of the act. In accordance with the act, the orders do so by imposing prohibitions or conditions on the entry of persons entering Canada, with the aim of protecting the public health of people in Canada.
The public health assessment of the measures introduced under the OICs is primarily undertaken by the Public Health Agency of Canada, including in consultation with other government departments or agencies as may be appropriate.
When issuing the order in council, the government publishes an explanatory note that accompanies each OIC. The explanatory note provides background information and rationale for the measures imposed in the orders. The explanatory note may provide further information outlining the basis for the various measures that have been introduced via the orders. As explained above, one of the main focuses of the measures is to protect the public health of Canadians.
Being provided periodically with each order that is made, the explanatory note is published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days of date that the order is made.

Question No. 346—
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the AgriDiversity Program administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: (a) how many applications were received in 2021; (b) how many projects were successful and received funding in 2021; (c) how many projects in (a) and (b) were to support African and Black Canadian work in 2021; and (d) what are the details of all projects in (c), including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) project description, (iii) amount of federal contribution, (iv) start date, (v) projected completion date?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, 10 applications were received in 2021.
Regarding part (b), three projects were successful and received funding in 2021.
Regarding part (c), two applications related to part (a) were to support African and Black Canadian work.
In response to part (d), information for applications that have not received funding are submitted in confidence and the details of the project could reveal the identity of the third party or organization without their expressed consent.

Question No. 349—
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the applications for the resettlement of refugees from Afghanistan, submitted to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many applications were filed under the special immigration program for Afghan nationals, and their families, who assisted the Government of Canada; (b) how many of the applicants in (a) remain in Afghanistan; (c) how many applicants in (a) have been refused; (d) how many applicants in (a) have come to Canada; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by month, since July 2021; (f) how many applications submitted under the Special Immigration Measures (SIM) program, the Afghan humanitarian Government-Assisted Refugees (GAR) program, as well as the Afghan humanitarian Privately Sponsored Refugees (PSR) program have yet to be processed by IRCC; (g) what is the average amount of time that those applications in (f) have to wait before being processed; (h) how many applications submitted under the SIMs, GARs, and PSR have completed biometrics; (i) how many government employees have been working on applications filed under the SIMs since July 2021; (j) what is the breakdown of (i) by month, from July 2021 to February 2022; and (k) how many IRCC employees were in Afghanistan from August 15 to 27, 2021?
Response
Ms. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as of February 16, 2022, approximately 14,840 persons’ applications have been received under the special immigration program for Afghan nationals and their families who assisted the Government of Canada.
With regard to (b), of the applications in process under the special immigration program for Afghan nationals and their families who assisted the Government of Canada, approximately 7,125 persons’ applications are from clients who remain in Afghanistan, based on information provided.
With regard to (c), fewer than 10 persons’ applications were refused through the special immigration measures program.
With regard to (d), members may refer to the website for the latest key figures, at https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services /refugees/afghanistan/key-figures.html.
With regard to (e), members may refer to the website for latest key figures, at https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/ services/refugees/afghanistan/key-figures.html.
With regard to (f), as of February 16, 2022, about 8,500 persons’ applications that were submitted under the special immigration measures program and the Afghan humanitarian government-assisted refugees program were in our processing inventory.
The Afghan humanitarian privately sponsored refugee program will facilitate the arrival of a mix of Afghan privately sponsored refugees in the existing inventory and new applications. As of February 16, 2022, there are approximately 7,267 Afghan privately sponsored refugee applications, in persons, in the processing inventory.
With regard to (g), IRCC cannot provide an estimate as to how long it will take to process applications that are currently in the processing inventory. IRCC is processing Afghan applications under the special immigration program for Afghans who assisted the Government of Canada in the humanitarian programs as quickly as possible. The time required to process these applications will depend on a variety of factors, including whether the client is still in Afghanistan.
With regard to (h), as of mid-February approximately 4,455 applicants under the special immigration measures had completed biometrics, while an additional 6,005 persons were exempt from completing biometrics but underwent a modified biographic screening process. Under the Afghan humanitarian government-assisted refugees program, 2,805 applicants had completed biometrics, while an additional 2,140 were exempt from completing biometrics but underwent a modified biographic screening process. Under the privately sponsored refugees program, 2,290 Afghan applicants had completed biometrics, while 1,340 were exempt from completing biometrics but underwent a modified biographic screening process.
With regard to (i) and (j), although IRCC has added significant resources to increase processing capacity, there is no specific data about staff working exclusively on processing applications for Afghan nationals. The department continues to process applications as efficiently as possible, not only by adding resources but also by waiving application fees, as well as mobilizing our global network to process and issue visas on an urgent basis. We have set up a dedicated telephone line, with extended hours, to serve Afghan clients seeking information and assistance.
With regard to (k), similar to other like-minded countries, all IRCC personnel left Kabul on August 15, 2021, with the closure of the embassy. During this period, IRCC mobilized a team supporting the Afghan evacuation efforts 24 hours per day and seven days per week, with employees in Canada, as well as at our missions around the globe, ensuring continuous real-time dedicated support for the air bridge. With the support of the Canadian Armed Forces, a Canadian presence remained in the region for as long as was safely possible.

Question No. 352—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to direction and control regulations as it relates to the Income Tax Act: (a) what is the government’s position regarding direction and control regulations; (b) does the government support Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources of a registered charity); (c) have government ministers met with individuals or organizations advocating for changes to direction and control regulations, and, if so, what are the details of all such meetings, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) names of ministers and Members of Parliament in attendance, (iii) names and titles of ministerial or political staff, as well as government officials in attendance, (iv) names and titles of individuals or organizations in attendance, (v) meeting format (in person or virtual); (d) are discussions ongoing within government about the challenges posed by and possible reforms to direction and control regulation, and, if so, which ministers and departments are involved in the discussions and what is the expected timeline for when (i) the discussions are expected to conclude, (ii) any reforms would be announced or enacted, if applicable?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes that some charities find these rules overly restrictive and onerous, and it is committed to ensuring that the regulatory framework supports the important work that charities perform. This is why in the government’s response to the report of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, the government committed to reviewing these rules to determine if they continue to be appropriate or if improvements can be made. The government is now actively considering how the framework for charities that work in partnership with others both in Canada and internationally could be improved such that it better supports the important work that charities perform while balancing the need for accountability among charitable resources.
The government will communicate its position on Bill S-216, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources of a registered charity), during the legislative process in the House of Commons.

Question No. 353—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government listing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist entity: (a) is the government reviewing whether or not to list the IRGC as a whole as a terrorist entity, and not just the Quds Force; (b) has the government reached a decision about whether or not to list the IRGC as a whole; (c) if the government has reached a decision, what is it; and (d) if the government has not reached a decision on the IRGC, when will it reach one?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, keeping Canadians safe is of paramount importance to this government. We are working with like-minded countries to ensure that Iran is held to account for its support of terrorism.
The Criminal Code sets out a terrorist listing regime to help prevent the use of Canada’s financial system to further terrorist activity and to assist in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences. The Minister of Public Safety may recommend to the Governor in Council, GiC, that individuals or groups be officially designated as “terrorist entities” pursuant to subsection 83.05(1) of the Criminal Code, on “establishment of list”, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity, or has knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with, an entity referred to in paragraph (a).
The term “entity” is defined as “a person, group, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization”. The definition does not include reference to a state.
Canada has robust measures in place to hold Iran and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, accountable for their support for terrorism, including some of the toughest and most comprehensive sanctions against Iran in the world. Canada continues to look at all possible options to further constrain the activities of Iran that threaten national security.
Canada has maintained the listing of the IRGC Qods Force as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code since 2012. The Qods Force is recognized as responsible for terrorist operations and for providing arms, funding and training to other terrorist groups. The Government of Canada also continues to list terrorist entities that have benefited from the Qods Force patronage, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, and three Iran-backed regional militias that were listed as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code in 2019.
Canada has implemented sanctions decisions of the United Nations Security Council, UNSC, into domestic law under the United Nations Act. Among a wide range of restrictions, the Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on Iran also include a dealings ban on persons listed by the UNSC, including senior members of the IRGC.
Other existing measures against the IRGC include the sanctions imposed under the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA (Iran) Regulations), in response to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The regulations explicitly target IRGC organizations, including the IRGC Air Force and Air Force Missile Command, IRGC Logistics and Procurement, IRGC Missile Command, IRGC Navy, and several members of its senior leadership. The SEMA (Iran) Regulations include a dealings ban on designated individuals and entities, which include the aforementioned IRGC organizations, effectively freezing their assets in Canada. These measures are also intended to restrict Iran’s access to sensitive goods from Canada, especially with respect to nuclear proliferation and the development of ballistic missiles.
On February 21, 2020, the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, the international standard-setting body for combatting money laundering and terrorist financing, called on its members, including Canada, to impose countermeasures on Iran to help mitigate the risk the Islamic Republic of Iran presents to the international financial system. On July 25, 2020, the Minister of Finance issued a ministerial directive due to Iran’s failure to address strategic deficiencies in its anti-money-laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism, or AML/CFT, regime. The measures identified were applied to the areas of greatest risk and include the requirement for financial institutions, credit unions and money services businesses to treat every financial transaction originating from or bound for Iran as a high-risk transaction and to report all transactions, regardless of their amount, to the Financial Transactions Reports and Analysis Centre.
Finally, Canada lists Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act, SIA, which allows civil actions to be taken against it under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, the JVTA.
We remain unwavering in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, including by taking all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world.

Question No. 354—
Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act and the Emergency Economic Measures Order: (a) which crowdfunding platforms or payment service providers registered with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada in relation to the order; (b) how many (i) suspicious, (ii) large value, transactions were reported by each platform or provider in relation to (a); and (c) what is the total value of the (i) suspicious, (ii) large value transactions reported by each platform in relation to (a)?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, due to the revocation of the Emergency Economic Measures Order and the limitations on the disclosure of information that are set out in subsection 55(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, and the Department of Finance cannot respond to the question.
In processing Parliamentary returns, the Department of Finance and FINTRAC also apply the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and this information constitutes personal information held by third parties that the government is not legally able to share.

Question No. 356—
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to expenditures by the government on the rental or purchase of cots or folding beds which were delivered to the government lobby in the House of Commons on February 17, 2022: what are the details of all related contracts and expenditures, including, for each, (i) the amount spent, (ii) the vendor, (iii) whether units were rented or purchased, (iv) the number of units?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government did not buy or rent any cots or folding beds for the government lobby in the House of Commons for February 17, 2022.
Collapse
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
moved:
That, given that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance has made an immeasurable contribution to peace, security, and prosperity for all its members, the House call on the government to increase spending on national defence to at least two per cent of Canada's gross domestic product, in accordance with NATO's 2014 Wales Summit Declaration.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
The world as we see it today is a violent place. We have entered a new stage in great power competition, where those great powers seek to maximize their influence on a global scale. The once-great superpower of the United States is now in a strategic competition with China and, to a much lesser extent, Russia. We have seen the traditional great powers of France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan, which supported the rules-based world order, under pressure from both Russia and China and regional rogue states such as North Korea and Iran.
I can remember when people said that there would never again be a war in Europe after the end of the Cold War. It was wishful thinking. No sooner had people uttered those words than we saw the Yugoslav civil war, Kosovo, the Georgian war, the Azerbaijan-Armenia war, the Russian seizure of Crimea, the Donbass, and now the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Today, we are witnessing the largest ground war we have seen in Europe since World War II.
Russia was once a superpower, and is now a great power in slow decline. It is a Eurasian land power with residual air and sea capabilities, and it has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Russia has successfully developed hypersonic cruise and ballistic missiles that are geared to defeat western missile defences, and it has weapons that are geared to destroy American port cities and flood them with radiation.
The goal of its government and Vladimir Putin is to put the old Russian empire back together with the Soviet empire’s borders. The threat of a new USSR threatens the Balkans, the Baltic states and Poland directly. In the past month, we have seen a Russian army of over 200,000 men invade Ukraine in a ghastly war that has created millions of refugees and tens of thousands of casualties, with no end in sight. We are seeing evidence of a number of potential war crimes in the path of the Russian invasion and retreat in the north of Ukraine.
The People’s Republic of China is a superpower on the rise. Time will tell the outcome of its strategic competition with the U.S. and its allies. It is important to note that the only successful drive for power between great powers and the international system was the transfer of power between the United Kingdom and the United States in 1945. It is very unlikely that we will see a peaceful transition of power this time around.
China has the world’s largest army, and it is well equipped. China now has the world’s largest navy. It is a blue-water navy with frigates, destroyers, cruisers and amphibious ships. The newest variants of those warships are as capable as their western equivalents. China has two aircraft carriers and a third under construction. The country's first two aircraft carriers are of limited capability, but the third, which is currently under construction, is as large as a Nimitz-class U.S. aircraft carrier. China maintains a large air force and has started to produce fifth-generation fighter aircraft similar to the F-35. While China’s strategic deterrent remains small, it is geared for deterrence and there are signs that China has recently constructed 500 new silos to house new missiles. In the next few years, China could have one of the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons.
China has also developed hypersonic cruise and ballistic missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles and air launch ballistic missiles. It maintains one of the largest missile inventories in the world, if not the largest. Many are dual-purpose, with either nuclear or conventional warheads geared to threaten, and if necessary overwhelm and destroy, their neighbours, while their strategic deterrent prevents the U.S. from intervening on their behalf.
We have watched China creep into the territory of its neighbours in the South China Sea. It has created artificial militarized islands and seized the possessions of others. We have seen China threaten India, seize land that has been Indian territory since the 1940s and set up communities in the territories of Bhutan and Nepal. It is engaged in genocide against the Uighur people. This past summer, China conducted a test of a fractional orbit bombardment system, where it launched an intercontinental ballistic missile to the south. The rocket popped out over South America, went into a fractional orbit, and flew north of the north pole. This is especially concerning, as it was very hard to detect: North America's missile defence and early warning system face north, with no coverage to the south.
Rogue states such as North Korea are building one of the largest inventories of missiles in the world. They are developing nuclear weapons, and we may see a North Korean nuclear test in the very near future. North Korea's intercontinental ballistic missiles are believed to be able to reach just west of Ottawa, and it too is experimenting with hypersonic weapons. The North Koreans are close to developing an effective submarine-launched ballistic missile, and they have one of the world’s largest armies. The opacity of North Korean decision-making and the rationality of its leadership make it a threat to its neighbours and to North America in general.
Iran, the most powerful country in the Middle East, is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. It has missiles for deployment and uses a network of about 22 proxy militias to terrorize its neighbours and Israel. Iranian militias are active in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and much of the Middle East, including the Palestinian general authority.
Maybe Canadians watching are wondering what all this has to do with Canada. Maybe, up until a month ago, they thought the same about Ukraine, but I am here to tell them and the House that the world is an unsafe place and there is evil in our midst. The best way to avoid war is to prepare for it. The only way to deter an opponent is by being strong and being determined. That is why we are members of NATO, NORAD and the Five Eyes. Neutrality is not really an option for Canada, and we cannot take our own security for granted anymore. We can no longer assume that others will look out for Canada unless Canada pays its fair share and looks out for itself.
Today’s opposition motion before the House ahead of the coming budget is to say to the government that it is time to pay up and purchase the equipment we need for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. There have been enough back-slapping platitudes and word salads. We must live up to our shared NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defence. The Canadian forces have been allowed to decline by the government over the past seven years.
We are on the precipice and we are standing into danger. The government has a choice: to increase spending to meet the NATO required 2% or not. I know the Liberals' political dance partners in the NDP believe that 2% is an arbitrary number, but in fact that is the number the Government of Canada signed up for in the 2014 NATO Wales Summit declaration. Right now, the government could do itself and Canadians a big favour and sign the contract with a firm delivery schedule for the F-35s. The government knows only too well that there is no negotiation and no refinement of numbers. As a consortium member, we get the F-35 at the exact same price as the United States. It is not going to be any cheaper. There are no negotiations: the price is fixed. It is fixed by the fiscal year we buy them in. Let us sign the deal and get on with it.
We also need Arctic icebreakers, and we need them now. Russia has 40 Arctic icebreakers, 20 nuclear and 20 conventional, a string of bases across the north and a specialized northern brigade. The Russian fleet in the North Sea is its main naval strike force. It is the home of the bulk of its strategic missile-carrying submarine fleet. It is from the north that Russian bombers cross the Arctic Ocean and approach North America, and where they conduct fire drills from what are called fireboxes off our air defence zones.
What does Canada have in the north? It does not have very much on a permanent basis, save our rangers, a reserve company and Alert. The F-35 is a start. Arctic ice breakers are a start, but we need new submarines that can go under the ice and stay under the ice, and those could be nuclear-powered submarines. We need surface warships, and we need them soon. We need to cut steel on an off-the-shelf design that has been proven. We need to expand our ranger program and rebuild our army. Canada needs to replenish its war stocks of modern anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, and provide the same to Ukraine in military aid.
The government’s sole accomplishment on the defence file today is buying used, obsolete Australian fighter planes that we did not need. When Prime Minister Harper’s government was in power, Canada bought C-17s, C-130Js, Leopard 2 main battle tanks, LAV armoured fighting vehicles and Chinook helicopters.
Enough is enough. Surely the men and women of the Canadian Forces deserve the best equipment. These are dangerous jobs. These are our countries' best citizens and our most selfless citizens. Otherwise, the verdict of history on the current government is going to be both too little and too late.
Collapse
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
It is pretty clear that there needs to be more investment in the Canadian Armed Forces. The 2% target was set during an international agreement with people from NATO and it is reasonable.
However, there are a lot of questions about procurement and many concerns about wasting public money. I would like my colleague's opinion on that.
We only have to look at the saga with the fighter jets that were cancelled in 2015. The Liberals promised they would never buy them, but now they announce that they are doing just that. If those jets had been purchased several years ago, they may have been less expensive.
We can also think of the submarines. It makes no sense to buy four used submarines, one of which caught on fire. That claimed the life of one of our soldiers. What is more, if only one submarine had been purchased, it might still be operational.
I would like my colleague to tell us what can be done to improve the way public funds are managed. Is there a way we could pass a budget and depoliticize the procurement process? Could we entrust this to professionals to prevent it from becoming a promise made by a politician during an election campaign to win votes?
Collapse
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend on all his points, because there is a lot of waste in procurement. It is overpoliticized with this government. It needs to be streamlined.
We streamlined the procurement process when we were in Afghanistan. Canada showed it can be done. Once we withdrew, it became more complicated all over again. In the last seven years, the Liberal government has spent $865 million, and it spent another billion on used aircraft from Australia, only to get us back to the F-35s, which were the best choice all along for our needs here in Canada.
Collapse
View Marty Morantz Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about the Cormorant helicopter fleet, because that is another category where the government has been dragging its feet. It initially budgeted to upgrade and repair the 14 helicopters back in 2017, but it seriously underbudgeted for that project. Those helicopters are essential for our air and sea rescue operations, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on this further foot-dragging by the Liberal government.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 15 of 121 | Page: 1 of 9

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

For more data options, please see Open Data