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. 3—
Mr. Mario Beaulieu:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage’s official languages funding programs over the past 10 years, broken down by year: (a) what amounts were allocated, broken down by province, by program and by component; and (b) what is the breakdown of the amounts allocated in (a) to the various institutions across the country, broken down by province, by level of education (primary, secondary, post-secondary) and by the institution’s main language of operation (anglophone institutions and francophone institutions)?
Response
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the information can be found using the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/official-languages-bilingualism/publications.html.
In response to (b), the requested information is not tracked in Canadian Heritage’s financial systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 1—
Mr. Denis Trudel:
With regard to government investments in housing, for each fiscal year since the introduction of the National Housing Strategy in 2017, broken down by province and territory: (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated to housing; (b) how many applications were received for (i) the National Housing Strategy (NHS) overall, (ii) the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, (iii) the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (iv) the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (v) the Rapid Housing Initiative under the projects stream, (vi) the Rapid Housing Initiative under the major cities stream, (vii) the Federal Lands Initiative, (viii) the Federal Community Housing Initiative, (ix) A Place to Call Home, (x) the Shared Equity Mortgage Providers Fund, (xi) the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive, (xii) the NHS’s Solutions Labs Initiative; (c) of the applications under (b), for each funding program and initiative, how many were accepted; (d) of the applications under (c), for each funding program and initiative, what was the amount of federal funding allocated or committed; (e) of the amounts in (d) allocated in the Province of Quebec, for each funding program and initiative, what is the breakdown per region; (f) of the amounts in (b)(v), what is the breakdown per project and per region; and (g) of the applications in (b)(v), what criteria were used for project selection?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2—
Mr. Mario Beaulieu:
With regard to the $10-a-day national child care program that would provide universal access to all Canadian families as of 2026 and the bilateral agreements that the federal government has signed with the various provinces and territories regarding this program: (a) do the eight agreements already signed with British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec include language clauses to protect the rights of linguistic minorities in a minority situation; (b) how many spaces are reserved for francophone minorities and what percentage of the total number of spaces that the federal government plans to create are reserved for francophone minorities, broken down by province and territory; (c) of the $30 billion over five years to fund this national program in the government’s latest budget, how much of the budget, broken down by province and territory, is earmarked to meet the needs of francophone minorities; and (d) with regard to the agreement with Quebec specifically, is the agreement conditional on any kind of measure for English-language institutions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 4—
Mr. Mario Beaulieu:
With regard to federal source revenue of post-secondary institutions in Quebec over the last 10 years, broken down by year: (a) what is the total revenue from federal sources, broken down by institution; (b) what share of the revenue in (a) came from (i) the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, (ii) Health Canada, (iii) the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, (iv) the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, (v) the Canada Foundation for Innovation, (vi) the Canada Research Chairs program, (vii) other federal sources; and (c) in detail, how does the funding system for research chairs operate and what variables determine the funding that each chair receives?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 8—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to recruiting in the Canadian Armed Forces from January 2019 to the present, broken down by month: (a) how many individuals who showed an interest in joining the Regular Force or the Primary Reserve contacted the Canadian Forces Recruiting Centres or the Primary Reserve units, online or in person; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many were male and how many were female; (c) of the individuals in (a), how many began the enrollment process, broken down by sex; and (d) how many of the individuals in (c) completed the enrollment process, broken down by sex?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 9—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to retention and attrition in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) what was the retention and attrition rate in the CAF, broken down by year since 2015; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) regular and reserve forces, (ii) diversity representation (women, Indigenous peoples, visible minorities, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 11—
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the Rapid Housing Initiative: (a) which organizations and communities in Northern Ontario applied for funding through the Initiative; (b) which organizations and communities in (a) received funding; (c) how much funding did each organization and community in (b) receive; and (d) what was the specific criteria or formula used to determine which applications were accepted and how much funding each successful applicant would receive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 12—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to long-term funding to the Centre for Equitable Library Access (CELA) and the National Network for Equitable Library Service (NNELS) for providing accessible reading services for those with reading disabilities: (a) how will the government ensure a permanent funding solution is implemented to support services that ensure equitable access to reading and other published works for Canadians with print disabilities; (b) does the government continue to believe there should be a full transition to industry, or does it now believe in a collaborative solution between industry and non-profits such as CELA and NNELS; (c) what data does the government have to show the transition cost of industry to take over the role that CELA and NNELS currently play in the industry providing materials for Canadians with print disabilities; (d) does the government have a commitment from industry that they are willing to make the necessary investments to take over this role; (e) knowing the cost of the transition, is the government committing to funding the transition to an industry led solution if industry is unwilling to commit to funding the transition; and (f) will the government commit to supporting smaller publishers unable to make this transition?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 13—
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to Canada’s National Housing Strategy: (a) how much money has been allocated to Calgary since 2017, broken down by year (i) through the Rapid Housing Initiative, (ii) through the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, (iii) through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (iv) through the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (v) in total through National Housing Strategy Funding Programs; (b) how much money is targeted to Calgary in total and through each of the National Housing Strategy Funding Programs in Budget 2021; (c) how many units have been supported in Calgary in total and through each of the funding programs since 2017; (d) how many units will be supported in Calgary in total and through each of the funding programs through Budget 2021; (e) how do the funding and units allocated to Calgary through the National Housing Strategy compare per capita to the funding and units allocated to other major Canadian cities, including Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Montreal; and (f) is any money being allocated towards adaptive reuse of Calgary’s vacant office spaces through the National Housing Strategy, and, if so, (i) through which funding programs, (ii) how much money is allocated, (iii) how many units will be created, (iv) when will units be created?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 14—
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the Clean Fuel Standard and Clean Fuel Regulations: (a) what is the estimated cost of compliance for fossil fuel suppliers; (b) what is the difference between the cost of compliance per tonne of emissions reductions through the Clean Fuel Standard compared to the cost per tonne of emissions reductions through the government’s market-based carbon pricing plan; and (c) what is the estimated increase in price borne by liquid fuel consumers (industry users and households) under (i) the Clean Fuel Standard, (ii) the carbon pricing plan between now and 2050, (iii) cumulatively?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 16—
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the government’s price on carbon: (a) how much has been paid by the average household each year since its introduction in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations; (b) how much has been returned to the average household in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations; (c) what has been the average reduction in emissions for households as a result of the price on carbon introduction in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations; and (d) what is the overall price for households per tonne of emissions reductions in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 17—
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the economic impact of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test requirement for fully vaccinated travellers on the tourism industry in the Niagara Region: (a) what was the number of foreign international travellers who arrived at the land border crossings in the Niagara Region, broken down by month since the border opened for non-essential arrivals on August 9, 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a), by point of entry; (c) what was the number of international travellers who arrived at each point of entry in the Niagara Region, broken down by month in the year prior to the border closure in March 2020; and (d) does the government have an estimate on the amount of lost tourism revenue in the Niagara Region as a result of the PCR requirement for vaccinated travellers and, if so, what is the estimate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 18—
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in Alberta: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in Alberta that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a), by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in Alberta for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c), by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 20—
Mr. Chris Lewis:
With regard to the economic impact of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test requirement for fully vaccinated travellers on the tourism industry in Southwestern Ontario: (a) what was the number of foreign international travellers who arrived at the land border crossings in Southwestern Ontario, broken down by month since the border opened for non-essential arrivals on August 9, 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by point of entry; (c) what was the number of international travellers who arrived at each point of entry in Southwestern Ontario, broken down by month in the year prior to the border closure in March 2020; and (d) does the government have an estimate on the amount of lost tourism revenue in Southwestern Ontario as a result of the PCR requirement for vaccinated travellers and, if so, what is the estimate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 21—
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to programs which provided money or financing to businesses, sectors, or communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy, the Tourism Relief Fund, and others, and broken down by program: (a) for each program, what is the total amount distributed to date in the riding of Calgary Shepard; (b) what was the total number of applications received from Calgary Shepard; and (c) of the applications in (b), how many were (i) accepted, (ii) denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 22—
Mr. Rob Moore:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in New Brunswick: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in New Brunswick that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a), by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in New Brunswick for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c), by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 24—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to the Fish Harvesters Benefit and Grant Program, broken down by each phase of the program: (a) what was the total number of applications for benefits that were (i) accepted, (ii) denied; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of applicant, including (i) self-employed commercial fish harvesters, (ii) those who held limited entry commercial licence eligibility (Pacific), (iii) self-employed freshwater fish harvesters, (iv) Indigenous harvesters who were designated by their community under a communal commercial fishing licence, (v) share persons crew, (vi) Indigenous harvesters who are crew members, who earn a share of the revenue; (c) what was the total number of grants for benefits that were (i) accepted, (ii) denied; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by type of applicant, including (i) self-employed commercial fish harvesters, (ii) those who held limited entry commercial licence eligibility (Pacific), (iii) freshwater fish harvesters (subject to provincial agreement to provide licensing information), (iv) Indigenous harvesters who were designated as Vessel Masters by their community under a communal commercial fishing licence; (e) what is the total dollar amount provided through the program to date; (f) of the applications which were denied, how many and what percentage of applicants appealed the decision; (g) how many and what percentage of the appeals in (f) were (i) granted, (ii) denied; (h) how many recipients have received claw back notices, broken down by type of applicant; (i) how many appeals has the government received related to the claw back notices; and (j) how many of the appeals in (i) were (i) granted, (ii) denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 25—
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to gain-of-function virology research: (a) what is the government's position on (i) funding such research, (ii) such research taking place in Canada; (b) has the government conducted any such studies since January 1, 2016, and, if so, what are the details of each study, including (i) who conducted the research, (ii) the location of the laboratory where research was conducted, (iii) the purpose or goal of the study, (iv) the findings; and (c) what are the details of any such studies or research funded by the government since January 1, 2016, including the (i) amount of funding, (ii) recipient, (iii) date of the funding, (iv) description of the project, (v) project start and end dates?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 26—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in Ontario: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in Ontario that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in Ontario for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 27—
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in British Columbia: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in British Columbia that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in British Columbia for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 29—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in Saskatchewan: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in Saskatchewan that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in Saskatchewan for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 31—
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in Manitoba: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in Manitoba that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in Manitoba for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 32—
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to privacy breaches that occurred since March 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many breaches have occurred; and (b) what are the details of each breach, including (i) the date, (ii) the number of individuals whose information was involved, (iii) the summary or description of the incident, (iv) the government program or service that was impacted by the breach, (v) whether or not the individuals whose information was involved were contacted, (vi) the date and method of how the individuals were contacted, (vii) whether or not the Privacy Commissioner was notified, (viii) the description of any measures provided to individuals impacted, such as free credit monitoring services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 34—
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to the VIA rail station in Cornwall, Ontario: (a) 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; (b) what was the daily train schedule, including the (i) numbers and times of all stops at the station, since January 1, 2010, (ii) dates and details of all changes to the schedule; and (c) how many individual departures and arrivals were made at the station, broken down by month, since January 1, 2010?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 35—
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in Quebec: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in Quebec that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in Quebec for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 36—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in British Columbia: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 37—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Newfoundland and Labrador: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 38—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the government’s Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) pandemic support program for businesses: (a) did the government consult with financial institutions to ensure they had the capacity to support the ongoing changes or expansion to the program before announcing these changes, and, if so, what are the details, including the dates of the consultation; (b) how many formal complaints were launched into the program and what system or process is in place to deal with complaints; (c) how many applicants were denied due to application issues, and what was the average success rate of applicants; (d) between December 4, 2020 and June 15, 2021, how many inquiries did the CEBA call centre receive, broken down by month and daily average; (e) what was the (i) shortest wait time, (ii) longest wait time, (iii) average wait time on the CEBA call centre inquiries line; (f) how many, and what percentage, of inquiries were considered resolved during the initial phone call to the CEBA call centre; and (g) what specific information is the CEBA call centre able to access from the processing department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 40—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the constitutionality of the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federal employees and travellers announced on October 6, 2021: (a) has the government sought and received legal advice as to whether the provisions contained in the government’s announcement are compliant with its obligations under (i) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (ii) the Canadian Human Rights Act, (iii) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (iv) the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (v) other laws or treaties prescribing human rights-related obligations on the government of Canada; (b) does the government intend to share any of the legal advice it has received as referenced in (a) publicly, and, if so, what are the details regarding how it will be shared; (c) does the government intend to table a Charter Statement with respect to the announcement referred to in (a); and (d) are organizations challenging the government’s policies respecting vaccination eligible for funding under the Court Challenges Program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 43—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) culture change and dealing with sexual harassment and violence: (a) did the Department of National Defence (DND) provide a formal response to (i) the June 2019 Standing Committee on the Status of Women's report, “A Force for Change – Creating a Culture of Equality for the Women in the CAF”, (ii) the May 2019 Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence's report on “Sexual Harassment and Violence in the CAF”; and (b) what were the formal responses and what specific actions did the DND take in response to these reports?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 44—
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Quebec: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 45—
Mr. Richard Bragdon:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in New Brunswick: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 46—
Mr. Scott Aitchison:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Northern Ontario: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 47—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Manitoba: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 48—
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the Prime Minister's itinerary, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many times and on what dates did the Prime Minister's published itinerary contain inaccurate information regarding meetings, travel, or locations, respecting information that was known at the time the itinerary was published; (b) in each case where the itinerary contained inaccurate information, (i) why did inaccurate information appear, (ii) was the inaccurate information corrected, and, if not, why not; (c) which staff, including exempt staff, in the (i) Office of the Prime Minister, (ii) Privy Council's Office are responsible for reviewing the Prime Minister's itinerary before it is published; and (d) what criteria is used for determining whether meetings are labeled "private" or specifically identified?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 49—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Alberta: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 50—
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Saskatoon and Central Saskatchewan: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 51—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the economic impact of the COVID-19 negative molecular test requirement for fully vaccinated travelers on the tourism industry in Eastern Ontario: (a) what was the number of foreign international travelers who arrived at the land border crossings in Eastern Ontario, broken down by month since the border opened for non-essential arrivals on August 9, 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by point of entry; (c) what was the number of international travelers who arrived at each point of entry in Eastern Ontario, broken down by month in the year prior to the border closure in March 2020; and (d) does the government have an estimate on the amount of lost tourism revenue in Eastern Ontario as a result of the test requirement for vaccinated travelers and, if so, what is the estimate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 52—
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Northern Saskatchewan: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 53—
Mr. Andrew Scheer:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Regina and Southern Saskatchewan: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 54—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Nova Scotia: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 55—
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to the “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy“ plan, and the government’s 30% absolute emissions reduction target for on-farm fertilizer use by the year 2030: (a) what fertilizer and agriculture industry groups were consulted before the government announced this approach, and what are the details of when and how they were consulted; (b) did the government consider the implementation by 4R Nutrient Stewardship by the agricultural industry before they made this announcement, and, if not, why not; (c) what specific studies or findings, if any, did the Minister of Environment and Climate Change use to determine that a 30% absolute emissions reduction target for on-farm fertilizer use by the year 2030 would be achievable without causing hardship for farmers; (d) what are the government’s, including Farm Credit Canada’s, projections on the impact that a 30% reduction will have on Saskatchewan canola production, processing and export markets; (e) what specific metrics will be used to determine if the 30% emissions reduction target is achieved; (f) how will the government monitor the impact of the 30% absolute emissions reduction target for on-farm fertilizer use by the year 2030 on Canada’s contribution to international food security; and (g) how will the government offset the loss of additional canola production required to increase biofuels in its Clean Fuel Standard?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 56—
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the October 6, 2021, announcement by the Prime Minister mandating vaccination for the federal work force and the federally-regulated transportation sectors: (a) what is the policy objective of the vaccine mandate; (b) did the government seek advice as to whether any of these policies infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, if so, what are the specific details, including (i) which individuals, groups, or organizations provided the advice, (ii) who was the advice provided to, (iii) on what dates was the advice received, (iv) what are the titles and internal tracking numbers for any documents containing the advice; (c) did any of the advice find that sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were being infringed upon, and, if so, what are the details of such advice; (d) were the infringements in (c) (i) found to be justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (ii) was the principal of minimal impairment adhered to?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 58—
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the costs associated with the Phoenix Pay System between February 2016 and October 2021, broken down by month: (a) what were the total costs incurred; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of expense and by Treasury Board Object Code?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 59—
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to federal contracts awarded to former public servants as defined in the Financial Administration Act, since January 1, 2020, and broken down by department or agency: (a) how many such contracts were awarded; (b) what is the total value of such contracts; and (c) what are the details of each contract, including (i) the date, (ii) the description of the goods or services, (iii) the amount, (iv) the vendor, (v) whether or not ministerial authorization was required for the contract to be awarded?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 63—
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), broken down by province and region: how many Canadians experienced a reduction in a GIS payment since January 2020, as a result of receiving income from a COVID-19 related financial relief program, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 68—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the relationship between prevailing wages and the rate of inflation in 2021 exceeding the Bank of Canada's annual target: for each of Employment and Social Development Canada's National Occupation Classification, how have prevailing wages (i) increased, (ii) decreased, (iii) remained stable between 2019 and 2021 inclusively?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 69—
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in Nova Scotia; (b) what was the 2018-base MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 70—
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Southwestern Ontario: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 71—
Mr. Frank Caputo:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in British Columbia; (b) what was the 2018-base MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 72—
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the requirement that an area must not have an unemployment rate above 6% in order for certain businesses in that area, including those in the hospitality sector, to qualify for the Temporary Foreign Workers Program: (a) has the government, including Destination Canada, done any studies or analysis on the impact of this requirement on the ability for hotel or restaurant owners to hire enough staff; (b) if the government has done any studies or analysis related to (a), what are the details, including the findings; and (c) what specific measures, if any, will the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance take in order to alleviate this burden on the hospitality sector?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 73—
Mrs. Anna Roberts:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in the Greater Toronto Area: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 75—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in Saskatchewan; (b) what was the 2018-base MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 76—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to programs which provided money or financing to businesses, sectors, or communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy, the Tourism Relief Fund, and others, and broken down by program: (a) what is the total amount distributed to date in the riding of Simcoe North; (b) what was the total number of applications received from Simcoe North; and (c) of the applications in (b), how many were (i) accepted, (ii) denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 79—
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in New Brunswick; (b) what was the "2018-base MBM" for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 80—
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, their administration of the Community Futures (CF) Program and the delivery of the CF program through the Community Futures Development Corporations (CFDCs): (a) what is the most recent investment fund balances for each of the 36 CFDCs in Southern Ontario; (b) what is the breakdown of the 1144 loans which were approved by CF between April 2020 and March 2021, broken down by category; and (c) between April 2019 and March 2021, how many of the 36 CFDCs in Southern Ontario were given permission to access their investment capital to cover operating expenses?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 81—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB): (a) how many individuals received support from these programs in total, broken down by each electoral district; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many were (i) Canadian citizens, (ii) permanent residents, (iii) temporary foreign workers, (iv) foreign students, (v) foreign nationals eligible for employment in Canada, (vi) foreign nationals who are no longer eligible to work in Canada because of either delays by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or because their International Experience Canada work permit has expired; (c) what is the breakdown of (i) CERB, (ii) CRB recipients by the amount of eligibility periods the recipients received benefits for; (d) how many CERB or CRB recipients (i) were investigated for potential ineligibility, (ii) were required to reimburse any payments, (iii) paid back any required reimbursements, (iv) have outstanding reimbursements owing; (e) what is the total dollar value of reimbursements (i) received, (ii) outstanding related to CERB and CRB; and (f) how many investigations are currently ongoing related to CERB or CRB fraud?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 83—
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in Ontario; (b) what was the 2018-base MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 84—
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Central and Eastern Ontario: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 86—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to all contracts signed by the government for the Centre Block rehabilitation project: (a) how many contracts have been awarded; and (b) what are the details of each contract, including the (i) date, (ii) description of the goods or services, including the volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of the vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 87—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) owned and managed small craft harbours: (a) how many exist in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound; (b) what is the condition of each small craft harbour in the federal riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, including the (i) last inspection date, (ii) recommendations for repair or reconditioning from these inspections; (c) what are the estimated costs to repair the Wiarton, Ontario, small craft harbour; (d) are there open, closed, planned tenders, or decisions to defer the repairs to the Wiarton, Ontario, small craft harbour; and (e) what is the department’s lifecycle management plan regarding all DFO owned and managed small craft harbours?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 91—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in Alberta; (b) what was the “2018-base MBM” for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; and (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; (e) what are the government’s estimates or projections where the poverty lined in (b) will be by end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024; and (f) what are the government’s projections on the number and percentage of Alberta seniors whose income levels will fall below the poverty line in each of the next three years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 92—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the procurement of supplies related to the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what is the number and percentage of contracts and the total amount and percentage of the total amount of all spending on supplies that went to organizations owned by (i) women, (ii) Indigenous people, (iii) people of colour, broken down by region; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 95—
Mr. Rob Morrison:
With regard to the economic impact of the COVID-19 negative molecular test requirement for fully vaccinated travellers on the tourism industry in British Columbia: (a) what was the number of foreign international travellers who arrived at the land border crossings in British Columbia, broken down by month since the border opened for non-essential arrivals on August 9, 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by point of entry; (c) what was the number of international travellers who arrived at each point of entry in British Columbia, broken down by month in the year prior to the border closure in March 2020; and (d) does the government have an estimate on the amount of lost tourism revenue in British Columbia as a result of the test requirement for vaccinated travellers and, if so, what is the estimate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 97—
Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe:
With regard to the processing of applications by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many applications has IRCC processed each year since January 2017, according to the most recent available data, broken down by visa category and type of application; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) in each province and territory where applicants intend or intended to settle; (c) what are the current processing times and application inventories, in addition to the service standard, for each visa category and type of application; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) in each province and territory where applicants intend or intended to settle; (e) what were the processing times and application inventories, in addition to the service standard, for each visa category and type of application as of October 1 for each year between 2016 and 2021; (f) what is the breakdown of (e) in each province and territory where applicants intend or intended to settle; and (g) how has the Afghanistan crisis in the summer of 2021 specifically affected IRCC’s ability to process applications, and what percentage of staff were reallocated to process Afghan nationals’ files on a priority basis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 98—
Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe:
With regard to the processing of study permit applications by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in the last five years where the requested data are available: (a) for all of Canada, excluding applications for study permits for institutions located in Quebec, how many applications were (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) approved, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (iv) denied, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (v) withdrawn, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent; (b) of the applications in (a), how many came from the following group of countries with a high percentage of French speakers, broken down by country: Algeria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Benin, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Côte d’Ivoire, France, Guinea, Haiti, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Switzerland, Senegal, Tunisia; (c) of the applications in (a), how many came from the following group of countries with a high percentage of English speakers, broken down by country: South Africa, Australia, Botswana, China, South Korea, the United States, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, the Republic of Ireland, Singapore, Sudan, Zimbabwe; (d) for all applications to come study at an institution located in Quebec, how many applications were (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) approved, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (iv) denied, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (v) withdrawn, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent; (e) of the applications in (d), how many came from the following group of countries with a high percentage of French speakers, broken down by country: Algeria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Benin, Cameroon, the DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, France, Guinea, Haiti, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Switzerland, Senegal, Tunisia; (f) of the applications in (d), how many came from the following group of countries with a high percentage of English speakers, broken down by country: South Africa, Australia, Botswana, China, South Korea, the United States, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, the Republic of Ireland, Singapore, Sudan, Zimbabwe; (g) for all applications to come study in an anglophone post-secondary institution (McGill University, Bishop’s University, Concordia University, Champlain College – St. Lawrence, Champlain College – Lennoxville, Champlain College – Saint-Lambert, Dawson College, John Abbott College, Vanier College, Heritage College) located in Quebec, how many applications were (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) approved, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (iv) denied, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (v) withdrawn, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent; and (h) for all applications to come study in a francophone post-secondary institution (meaning any institution not listed in (g)) located in Quebec, how many applications were (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) approved, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (iv) denied, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (v) withdrawn, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 99—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to government procurement contracts signed since January 1, 2020, by the government, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) how many contracts were cancelled, suspended, or disputed; and (b) what are the details of each such contract in (a), including the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) original amount, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) date of cancellation, suspension or dispute, (vi) details of the reason for cancellation, suspension or dispute, (vii) current status of cancellation, suspension, or dispute, (viii) details of any amount recovered or lost by the government as a result of cancellation, suspension, or dispute?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 100—
Mrs. Dominique Vien:
With regard to programs which provided money or financing to businesses, sectors, or communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, broken down by program: (a) for each program, what is the total amount distributed to date in the riding of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis; (b) what was the total number of applications received from the riding of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis; and (c) of the applications in (b), how many were (i) accepted, (ii) denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 101—
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to pipeline safety and the government's reaction to David Suzuki's recent comments about pipelines blowing up: (a) does the Prime Minister denounce Mr. Suzuki's comments and, if not, why not; (b) does the Minister of Environment and Climate Change denounce Mr. Suzuki's comments and, if not, why not; (c) what is the government's policy regarding future meetings, events, or dealings with Mr. Suzuki; and (d) in light of the comments, is the government planning to add specific measures to ensure that pipelines are protected and, if so, what are they?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 103—
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to the Canadian delegation at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow: (a) who were the members of the delegation, including, for each, what organization they represented, if applicable; (b) what are the total costs incurred to date by the government related to the delegation; and (c) what are the total costs incurred by the government to date related to the delegation for (i) air transportation, (ii) land transportation, (iii) hotels or other accommodations, (iv) meals, (v) hospitality, (vi) room rentals, (vii) other costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 104—
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay:
With regard to projects funded in British Columbia through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund: what are the details of all projects projected to be completed in over the next five years, including the (i) location, (ii) project description, (iii) expected completion date, (iv) total project cost, (v) total federal funding commitment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 105—
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in Manitoba; (b) what was the "2018-base MBM" for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 106—
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to both funding streams of the Rapid Housing Initiative (the Projects Stream and the Major Cities Stream): (a) what was the (i) total number of approved projects, (ii) total number of approved housing units, (iii) total dollar value of each housing project, (iv) dollar value of the federal contribution of each housing project, (v) dollar value of any other contributor of each housing project; (b) what is the breakdown of each part of (a) by (i) municipality and province or territory, (ii) federal electoral constituency; (c) what is the breakdown of funds committed in (a) by (i) individual application, (ii) contributor source (i.e. federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous government, non-profit, other agency or organization), (iii) province or territory; and (d) what are the details of all applications in (a)(i), including the (i) location, (ii) project description, (iii) number of proposed units, (iv) date the application was submitted to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (v) date the project was announced publicly?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 107—
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the government's National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCIF): (a) what is the total number and dollar value of housing projects resulting from the NCFI; and (b) for each project resulting from the NHCIF, what is (i) the status of their progress, broken down by the Canada and Mortgage Corporation's four tracking and reporting phases (conditional commitment, financial commitment, construction or repair underway, completed), (ii) the number of units, (iii) the federal funds committed, (iv) the partners' funds committed, (v) their location by municipality and province or territory, (vi) their location by federal electoral constituency, (vii) their project description, (viii) the date the application was submitted, (ix) the date the contribution agreement was signed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 108—
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the government's National Housing Strategy: (a) what is the total number of housing units that have resulted from the strategy, broken down by program, funding envelope, and project; and (b) for each project in (a), what is the status of their progress, broken down by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's approach for tracking and reporting on a project through its four different phases, including (i) conditional commitment, (ii) financial commitment, (iii) construction or repair underway, (iv) completed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 109—
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to government projections on the impact of inflation and rising interest rates on homeowners: (a) what are the government's projections and analysis related to the impact that higher prices on essential goods, due to inflation, will have on the ability of homeowners to make mortgage payments; (b) does the government have any estimates on how many homeowners won't be able to make their mortgage payments as a result of inflationary pressures, and, if so, what are the estimates; (c) does the government or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have any projections related to the average increase in mortgage payments as a result of future interest rate increases, and, if so, what are the projections; and (d) does the government have any estimates related to the number of homeowners who will be unable to afford their mortgages as a result of future interest rate increases and, if so, what are those estimates?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 110—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the government’s decision to “set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers,” as laid out in Environment and Climate Change’s 2020 plan entitled “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy“: (a) what is the full list of “manufacturers, farmers, provinces and territories”, as defined by the “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy“ plan, that were consulted about this decision prior to the release of the plan; (b) what are the details of all consultations which were held regarding the economic impact of this decision prior to the release of the plan, specifically on the agricultural sector and food production; and (c) what is the full list of “manufacturers, farmers, provinces and territories”, as defined by the “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy“ plan, that have been consulted regarding the economic impact of this decision from December 2020 to the present?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 111—
Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to the economic impact of the COVID-19 negative molecular test requirement for fully vaccinated travelers on the tourism industry in Alberta: (a) what was the number of foreign international travelers who arrived at the land border crossings in Alberta, broken down by month since the border opened for non-essential arrivals on August 9, 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by point of entry; (c) what was the number of international travelers who arrived at each point of entry in Alberta, broken down by month in the year prior to the border closure in March 2020; (d) does the government have an estimate on the amount of lost tourism revenue in Alberta as a result of the test requirement for vaccinated travelers and, if so, what is the estimate; and (e) what estimates or projections does Parks Canada or Destination Canada have related to the lost revenue as a result of the test requirement on tourism and revenue levels in Banff National Park, in particular as it relates to the 2021-22 ski season?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 112—
Mr. Joël Godin:
With regard to the labour shortage problem and delays in obtaining work permits for foreign workers: (a) how many foreign workers are waiting for a response (i) in Canada, (ii) for the province of Quebec, (iii) in the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier; (b) what time frame does the government deem acceptable for ensuring that a work permit is obtained for a foreign worker; (c) what is the current time frame for work permits for foreign workers in each province; (d) has the government found solutions to its major breakdown with Service Canada that is causing significant delays in the delivery of work permits for foreign workers and, if so, what are they; (e) what is the cause of Service Canada’s computer glitches with foreign worker files; and (f) does the government have any analysis of changes in the labour shortage and, if so, what is the government’s estimate of the labour shortage over the next 10 years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 113—
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the impact of labour shortages on Canadian fruit growers and fruit processors: (a) what are the government's estimates on the shortage of workers during the 2021 fruit harvesting season, broken down by region; (b) what was the estimated loss of yield or production in the Canadian fruit industry in 2021 as a result of labour shortages, broken down by region and crop; and (c) will (i) Immigration and Refugees and Citizenship Canada, (ii) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, take specific actions to ensure that the Canadian industry doesn't face another labour shortage in 2022 and, if so, what are they?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 115—
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to all contracts signed by the government where advance payments were made since February 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many such contracts were awarded; (b) what is the total value of those contracts; and (c) what are the details of each contract with advance payment, including the (i) date, (ii) description of the goods or services, including the volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of the vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 118—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) audit programs for businesses and particulars, since November 2015, broken down by year and by program: (a) how many audits were completed; (b) what is the number of auditors, broken down by category of auditors; (c) how many new files were opened; (d) how many files were closed; (e) of the files closed in (d), what was the average time it took to process the files before they were closed; (f) of the files closed in (d), what was the risk level of each file; (g) how much was spent on contractors and subcontractors; (h) of the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the initial and final value of each contract; (i) among the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the description of each service contract; (j) how many reassessments were issued; (k) what is the total amount recovered; (l) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (m) of the investigations in (l), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (n) of the investigations in (m), how many resulted in convictions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 120—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), broken down by province and region and constituency: (a) how many Canadians experienced a reduction in their GIS in 2021, as a result of receiving income from a COVID-19 related financial support program, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit; (b) how many Canadians have applied for a reassessment of their GIS since their assessments were released in July 2021; and (c) how many GIS reassessment applications for 2021 have been successful, or are still in the process of review?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 121—
Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin:
With regard to international transfers of Canadian prisoners detained abroad: (a) how many applications has Canada approved over the past 10 years, broken down by year and by country where the applicant was being detained at the time of application; (b) how many applications has Canada denied over the past 10 years, broken down by year and by country where the applicant was being detained at the time of application; (c) how many applications for transfer to Canada were denied by the country where the applicant was being detained over the past 10 years, broken down by year and by country of origin of the application; (d) what are the conditions for applying for a transfer from Japan; (e) which article of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons states that a sentenced person must have served one third of their sentence to be granted a transfer to Canada from Japan; (f) for all the transfer applications over the past 10 years, how much time, on average, elapsed between the transfer application and the transfer; (g) over the past 10 years, how many times has Global Affairs Canada intervened in favour of an accelerated transfer for a transfer application from a Canadian sentenced abroad; (h) over the past 10 years, how many administrative arrangements for transfer have been approved by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Public Safety; and (i) over the past 10 years, how many administrative arrangements for transfer has Canada signed with convention signatory countries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 122—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the government's plan to set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers: (a) does the government accept MNP's analysis from September 2021 that cumulative lost production of canola could total approximately 151 million tonnes between 2023 and 2030, and if not, why not; (b) does the government have any analysis which is contrary to MNP's analysis, and if so, what are the details, including the findings; (c) what are the projected economic impacts on the domestic production of biofuels related to the lost production of canola or other biofuel crops for the period between 2023 and 2030; (d) has the government carried out any impact analysis study of absolute reductions of fertilizer (i) prior to making the announcement, (ii) after making the announcement, and if so, what are the details, including findings; (e) has the government carried out any impact analysis study of emissions intensity reduction from fertilizer prior to making the announcement, and if so, what are the details, including findings; and (f) will the government carry out an impact analysis study related to absolute reduction and emissions intensity reduction from fertilize before any such target or restriction is imposed, and if so, what are the details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 123—
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the importation of batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) into Canada and the government's concerns about current and future shortages of batteries for EVs: (a) what specific plans does the government have to improve the battery shortage faced by Canadian EV manufacturers; (b) does the government have any plans to ensure that more EV batteries are manufactured in Canada, and if so, what are the details of the plans, including the projected increase in the number of domestically manufactured batteries; (c) does the government's plan include an industry reliance on foreign produced EV batteries for Canadian manufactured vehicles, and if so, what percentage of the batteries in new Canadian EVs are expected to be foreign produced, broken down by each of the next five years; (d) what standards are in place to ensure that EV batteries imported to Canada are not made (i) from child labour, (ii) from forced labour, (iii) with materials mined by children or exploited workers; (e) have any EV batteries destined for Canada been intercepted by Canada Border Services Agency in the last five years due to concerns related to labour standards, and if so, what are the details; (f) what are the government's current assessments related to problems with the global supply chain associated with EV batteries; (g) what is the government's assessment of the impact that the United States' Buy American policy has on the shortage of batteries for Canadian EV plants; (h) what are the government's projections related to the number of new electric vehicles expected to be produced in Canada in each of the next five years; and (i) what are the government's projections related to the number of EV batteries which will be available to Canadian EV manufacturers in each of the next five years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 124—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the government's decision to "set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers," as laid out in Environment and Climate Change Canada's 2020 plan entitled "A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy": (a) has Farm Credit Canada done any analysis related to the impact that lower fertilizer amounts will have on crop production, and if so, what are the details, including findings of the analysis; (b) what is the projected increase in both demand and federal budget for business risk management (BRM) programs like AgriStability and AgriRecovery, as a result of this decision; (c) what new measures are proposed to adjust for the decline in crop yields, specifically pertaining to the historical reference period used for determining eligibility for BRM programs; (d) what new insurance programs or financial assistance programs will be available for farmers whose crop yields rely disproportionately on their ability to use fertilizer, and will be disproportionately affected by mandatory reductions in fertilizer use; (e) what are Farm Credit Canada's projections regarding yield gaps, broken down by each different type of Canadian crop, each year from now until 2030; and (f) has Health Canada or any other government department or agency done any analysis on the ability of Canadians to pay more for food at the grocery store as a result of lower yields by Canadian farmers, and if so, what are the details, including findings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 125—
Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe:
With regard to the Chinook tool used by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in the processing of study permits and temporary visas: (a) why has the use of Chinook not been publicly disclosed; (b) who developed this tool and why; (c) how does the tool work; (d) what are the different steps in its use; (e) has the tool been subject to one or more cybersecurity audits and, if so, by which firm or individual; (f) why is its use not disclosed directly to immigration applicants; (g) why can’t details of decisions made using the tool be saved or retained in some way; (h) what oversight does IRCC provide to ensure that immigration officers use the tool correctly; (i) what data is processed using the tool; (j) how are immigration applications ranked and based on what indicators; (k) what efficiency gains does Chinook provide; (l) what keywords or indicators are most likely to increase the risk level of an application; (m) what keywords or indicators are most likely to lead to a refusal of an application; (n) what do we know about the algorithms used by the tool; (o) why have refusal rates for study permit applications increased significantly since the tool was implemented in March 2018; (p) what guidance is provided to IRCC staff about using the tool; (q) what visa offices, in Canada and abroad, use Chinook, broken down by office; (r) in (q), what version of Chinook is used; (s) what visa offices processing study permit and temporary visa applications, in Canada and abroad, do not use Chinook; (t) in (s), why; and (u) was the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship at the time of Chinook’s implementation consulted about its implementation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 126—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Special Immigration Measures for Afghans who assisted our Canadian Armed Forces as interpreters or locally engaged staff, since July 22, 2021, to present: (a) how many of these Afghans have reached Canada; (b) how many of these Afghans have been referred by the Department of National Defence (DND) to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and received an invitation to apply; (c) how many of these Afghans have been referred by DND to IRCC, but have not received an invitation to apply; (d) of the Afghans referred by DND to IRCC who have not been invited to apply, (i) what database are their names being held in, (ii) who is responsible for making the decision to put their names into the Global Case Management System, assign them an application number, and send an invitation to apply; and (e) what criteria are being used to determine which Afghans should receive an application number and an invitation to apply and when, and are these Afghans being tiered based on the severity of their individual security circumstances?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 127—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) reserves applying to transfer to become full active members of the Army, Navy, or Air Force, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by each branch applied for: (a) what is the number of reservists who have applied to become members of the Army, Navy or Air Force; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were successful; (c) what was the average time between when an application by a reservist was received and a final decision was made; and (d) what are the CAF's service standards related to the length it takes to make a decision on such transfers, and what percentage of applicants received a decision within the service standard timeline?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 128—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to complaints received by the Canada Revenue Agency related to its various assistance by telephone lines and numbers: (a) what is the number of complaints received since January 1, 2019, broken down by month; and (b) of the numbers in (a), what is the breakdown by type of complaint, including (i) line not working or out of service, (ii) dropped calls, (iii) long hold times, (iv) other, broken down by type?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 129—
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to documents sent by or received by Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada related to COVID-19 vaccines, drugs, or treatments and excluding correspondence from the general public, since March 1, 2020: what are the details of each such document including the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) title, (iv) date, (v) file number or tracking number, (vi) type of document (memorandum, application, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 130—
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the processing of applications by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many applications has IRCC received and processed since January 2021, broken down by month; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by visa category and type of application; (c) how many applications did IRCC receive each month in 2020, broken down by month; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by visa category and type of application; (e) how many of the applications received since January 2021 are considered in backlog; (f) how many of the applications received in 2020 were considered in backlog; (g) since January 2021, what is the average visa processing time, broken down by category; and (h) in 2020, what was the average visa processing time, broken down by category?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 131—
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the applications and resettlement of refugees from Afghanistan submitted to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) what is the number of applications of Afghan refugees broken down by stage of processing; (b) what is the average processing time for an Afghan refugee application under the special immigration program; (c) how many Afghan refugees who applied to IRCC are in third countries; (d) what is the country breakdown of refugees in (c); (e) how many Afghan interpreters have submitted a refugee application; (f) how many Afghan interpreters' applications have been processed; (g) how many Afghan interpreters' applications have been denied; (h) what is the breakdown of (g) by reason for denial; (i) how many Afghan refugee applications have been made by refugees who identify as a targeted religious minority; and (j) what is the timeline for IRCC to resettle all 40,000 Afghan refugees in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 132—
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the allegations of racism and discrimination reported by employees of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in the IRCC Anti-Racism Employee Focus Groups Final Report by Pollara Strategic Insights delivered in June 2021: (a) how many complaints of racism and discrimination have been made by employees at IRCC since January 2019; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by month since January 2019; (c) how many of the complaints made by employees were referred to or handled by the Office of Conflict Resolution; (d) what is the number of complaints of racism and discrimination handled by the Office of Conflict Resolution since its creation, broken down by month; (d) what authority and recourse does the Office of Conflict Resolution have to respond to complaints of racism and discrimination; (e) how many members of the anti-racism task force at IRCC identify as racialized; (f) what measures, other than the IRCC Code of Conduct, have been implemented to combat racism and discrimination in IRCC; (g) how are these measures, and the IRCC Code of Conduct, being enforced by IRCC management; and (h) what is IRCC doing to ensure that racism and discrimination does not affect the processing and review of immigration, refugee, and citizenship applications, and the approval or denial of these applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 133—
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to vehicles provided for the use of ministers and the federal executive vehicle fleet, as of November 29, 2021: (a) what is the total number of vehicles provided for the use of ministers; (b) what was the total cost of procuring the vehicles currently in use by ministers; (c) for each ministerial vehicle, what was the (i) date purchased, (ii) make and model, including the year, (iii) purchase price, (iv) whether it was manufactured in Canada; (d) what is the total number of vehicles in the federal executive vehicle fleet; (e) what was the total cost of procuring vehicles for the fleet; (f) for each vehicle in the fleet, what was the (i) date purchased, (ii) make and model, including the year, (iii) purchase price, (iv) whether it was manufactured in Canada; and (g) what is the government’s official policy related to buying vehicles manufactured in Canada for ministerial vehicles and the federal executive vehicle fleet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 134—
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive (FTHBI) announced by the government in 2019, from September 1, 2019, to date: (a) how many applicants have applied for mortgages through the FTHBI program, broken down by province and municipality; (b) of those applicants, how many have been approved and accepted mortgages through the FTHBI program, broken down by province and municipality; (c) of those applicants listed in (b), how many approved applicants have been issued the incentive in the form of a shared equity mortgage; (d) what is the total value of incentives (shared equity mortgages) under the program that have been issued, in dollars; (e) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is that value of each of the mortgage loans; (f) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is that mean value of the mortgage loan; and (g) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers through the FTHBI to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 136—
Mr. Martin Champoux:
With regard to federal public servants who have been placed on unpaid leave due to their vaccination status: (a) how many are there in total; (b) of the total in (a), what is the breakdown by federal department and agency; and (c) for each federal department and agency in (b), what percentage of total employees do the employees who have been placed on unpaid leave account for?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 137—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and proposed changes by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, including the Draft Conservation Network Design for the Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy Bioregion: (a) for each proposed change or additional MPA, what would be the impact to the lobster fishery and lobster quotas; (b) what would be the impact in Lobster Fishing Areas (LFA) 27 through 34, broken down by LFA; and (c) what are the details of all memorandums, briefing notes, reports, or correspondence related to the MPAs or the proposals since January 1, 2016, including (i) the date, (ii) the type of document, (iii) the sender, (iv) the recipient, (v) the title, (vi) the summary of the contents, (vii) the internal file or tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 139—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the job posting which closed in October 2020 where the Privy Council Office was looking for a storyteller to join the Prime Minister and Visual Communications team: (a) how many storytellers are currently working for the Privy Council Office or the Office of the Prime Minister; (b) what is the organizational structure for the storytellers, such as is there a lead storyteller that the other storytellers pitch their stories to; (c) who decides whether or not a story is worth telling; (d) what is the yearly budget of the storytelling department; (e) who does the lead storyteller report to; (f) of the storytellers currently employed, how many have prior experience writing fictional stories; (g) what metrics are used to judge the quality of the storytelling; (h) what is itemized breakdown of the storytelling budget; (i) how many stories have been told by the storytellers; and (j) of the stories in (i), how many were fictional?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 140—
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to legal costs incurred by the government in relation to its legal application launched in June 2021 against the Speaker of the House of Commons, as well as any subsequent legal action related to this case: (a) what is the total number of billable hours incurred by outside legal counsel to prepare this application and subsequent legal action; (b) what is the total amount (i) paid out, (ii) scheduled to be paid out, by the government to outside legal counsel to prepare this application and subsequent legal action; (c) what is the total number of federal civil servants that were assigned to assist in the preparation of this application, broken down by department or agency; (d) which ministers, ministerial exempt staff, or senior government officials participated in the preparation of this application; (e) which ministers, ministerial exempt staff, or government officials had outside legal expenses covered by the government in relation to this application or the related order of the House of Commons; (f) what was the total amount (i) paid out, (ii) scheduled to be paid out, in legal expenses related to (e); and (g) which departments or agencies allocated resources to prepare the legal application, and what specific resources did each department or agency allocate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 142—
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille:
With regard to the funding granted in 2020 to United Way Centraide Canada, through the Emergency Community Support Fund, to increase response capacity and expand 211 service coverage to all Canadian residents, with said funding coming to an end on March 31, 2021: (a) what amount was spent to expand coverage of the 211 service across Quebec; and (b) how many referrals were made through the 211 service broken down by (i) each region of Quebec, (ii) month, between March 2020 and March 2021?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 143—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, broken down by province and territory, and fiscal years from 2018 to present: (a) how many work permits have been processed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and are expected to be processed for 2021-22; (b) of the permits in (a), how many of those migrants have come to Canada to fill jobs; (c) what employment sectors have those jobs been in; (d) what is the expected duration of the work permits for the migrants in (b), in each sector; (e) what was the average processing time for work permits in each employment sector; (f) what was the average wait time between application, processing and arrival time in Canada to begin employment, for each economic sector; and (g) is the government providing new opportunities for these migrants to become permanent residents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 144—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, broken down by province and territory, and fiscal years from 2018 to present: (a) how many Labour Market Impact Assessments has Employment and Social Development Canada (i) undertaken, (ii) completed; (b) what was the average processing time for the applications in (a); (c) how many jobs has the program filled within the heavy trucking sector by class of license; and (d) how many of the temporary foreign workers in (c) became permanent residents of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 145—
Mr. Bob Benzen:
With regard to usage of the government's fleet of Challenger aircrafts, since January 1, 2021: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 146—
Mr. Bob Benzen:
With regard to usage of the government's Airbus CC-150 Polaris aircraft, since January 1, 2021: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 147—
Mr. Bob Benzen:
With regard to the Ottawa quarantine hotel set up for the Prime Minister and the delegation that travelled with him to Europe in June 2021: (a) what was the total amount paid to the hotel to accommodate the Prime Minister and his entourage for the purpose of quarantining; (b) how many individuals quarantined at the hotel; (c) of the individuals who quarantined at the hotel, how many received their initial COVID test results back and were permitted to leave the hotel in (i) less than 12 hours, (ii) 12 to 24 hours, (iii) 24 to 48 hours, (iv) more than 48 hours; (d) are the quarantine hotel travel expenses incurred by the Prime Minister and his exempt staff posted under proactively published travel expenses, and, if so, on what date were these expenses posted; (e) what costs were incurred to transform the hotel from a regular hotel to a designated quarantine hotel, and what is the itemized breakdown of the costs; and (f) how many returning international travelers not associated with the Prime Minister's trip were permitted to use this Ottawa hotel as a designated quarantine hotel upon arriving in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 148—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to COVID-19 vaccines procured by the government: (a) what are the government's estimates regarding how many vaccine doses were not administered; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by reason (expired, wasted, improperly stored, etc.) and by vaccine manufacturer (Moderna, Pfizer, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 149—
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the government's renovation project of the former United States Embassy building at 100 Wellington Street in Ottawa: (a) what are the total costs incurred by the government since January 1, 2016, related to renovating the building; (b) what is the itemized breakdown of the costs in (a); (c) what is the projected total budget for the renovation project; (d) what is the timeline of the renovation project, including the expected completion date; and (e) what will the renovated building be used for once the project is complete?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 151—
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to interactions between the government and social media companies since January 1, 2019: what are the details of each time the government flagged or made a request to remove or put a warning on a social media post, broken down by department or agency, including the (i) date of request, (ii) platform (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), (iii) description of post or content, (iv) reason for flagging or removal request, (v) name of account or handle associated with the post subject to the removal request, (vi) whether or not the social media company removed the post, (vii) whether or not the social media company put a warning on the post, (viii) title of government official or exempt staff member who made the request?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 152—
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to government spending on COVID-19 vaccine production facilities: (a) what is the amount actually spent to date on such facilities; and (b) what are the details of each facility which received funding, including the (i) location, (ii) company name, (iii) how much funding has been received, (iv) how many COVID-19 vaccines are currently being produced at the facility each month, (v) what is the status of the facility, (vi) when will the facility start producing vaccines, if it is not yet producing vaccines, (vii) on what date did the facility start producing COVID-19 vaccines, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 153—
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to any contracts or businesses dealings between any government department, agency, Crown Corporation, or other government entity and Global Health Imports Corporation, since the company was incorporated in April 2020: (a) what are the details of any contracts with the company, including the (i) date, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) description of goods or services, including the volume, (iv) reason the contract is not listed through proactive disclosure, if applicable; and (b) what are the details of all submissions, proposals or inquiries received by the government from the company, including the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) summary of response?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 154—
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the development of Snapchat filters by or for the government, including agencies, Crown corporations, and other government entities, since January 1, 2018: (a) what amount has been spent developing the filters; (b) what is the description or purpose of each filter; and (c) for each filter developed, what are the details, including the (i) amount spent on development, (ii) date of launch, (iii) analytic data or usage rates, (iv) campaign for which the filter was developed, (v) locations where filters were available?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 156—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to government funding for fiscal years 2019-20 and 2020-21 allocated within the constituency of Winnipeg Centre: what is the total funding amount, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) department or agency, (iii) initiative, (iv) amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 160—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) since January 1, 2020, how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) rejected, (iv) are in inventory, broken down by month, stream (e.g. Home Child Care Provider, citizenship, etc.), and whether the application was inland or outland; (b) how many applications have passed eligibility, criminality and security, but do not have a final decision since January 1, 2020, broken down by month, stream, and whether the application was inland or outland; (c) for applications in (b), what is the average time that has passed since passing the most recent of those steps, broken down by stream, and whether the application was inland or outland; (d) how many first-stage decisions on applications for the Home Child Care Provider and Home Support Worker pilots have been issued between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021; (e) broken down by year and reason for refusal (including reason for not passing eligibility), what is the number of Humanitarian and Compassionate applications that were refused since 2015; (f) for how many applications in (e) did an officer request additional information from an applicant prior to issuing a refusal; (g) broken down by stream, how many applications submitted to bilingual streams (Stream A, Stream B and International Graduates) of the temporary resident to permanent resident pathway were issued refusals for failing to submit French language test result; and (h) how many applications in (g) received a positive eligibility assessment following a reconsideration?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 161—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy, broken down by type of applicant (e.g. non-profit, for-profit, Indigenous organization), stream (e.g. new construction, revitalization), stage (e.g. letter of intent, finalized agreement, servicing), date of the submission, province, number of units, number of units for Indigenous households, whether or not construction has been completed, and the dollar amount (for grants and loans): (a) how many applications have been received under the National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCF) since 2018; (b) for NHCF applications that resulted in finalized funding agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their funding agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project, (iii) percentage of units meeting the NHCF affordability criteria, (iv) average and median rent of units meeting the affordability criteria; (c) how many applications have been received under the Rental Construction Financing initiative (RCFi) since 2017; (d) of the applications in (c) that resulted in loan agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their loan agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project, (iii) percentage of units meeting RCFi affordability criteria, (iv) average and median rent of units meeting the affordability criteria; (e) how many applications have been received for the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI) since 2020; and (f) of the applications in (e) that resulted in loan agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 162—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the government’s response to the crisis in Afghanistan: (a) under the special measures for people in Afghanistan, broken down by month, how many people have (i) applied, (ii) been provided with a Canadian visa or confirmation of Canadian citizenship, (iii) received invitations to go to an airport, (iv) been approved to be a permanent resident; (b) under the special measures for Afghan nationals outside of Afghanistan and their dependents, broken down by inland and outland origin of requests and by month, how many applications have (i) been received, (ii) been approved, (iii) resulted in the applicant landing in Canada; (c) what are the details of any briefing notes on Afghanistan provided to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship since 2019, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) internal tracking number; (d) what are the details of any briefing notes on Afghanistan provided to the Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2019, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) internal tracking number; (e) what are the details of any briefing notes on Afghanistan provided to the Minister of National Defense since 2019, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) internal tracking number; and (f) what are the details of any responses to the briefing notes in (c), (d) and (e), including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) recipient, (v) internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 164—
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to government public awareness or advertising campaigns related to potential harms associated with cannabis use, excluding those focused on the dangers of drug impaired driving: what are the details of each such campaign launched by the government since January 1, 2019, including the (i) campaign title and description, (ii) date campaign was launched, (iii) start and end date of the campaign, (iv) campaign budget, (v) targeted age range or other demographics, (vi) names of the traditional and social media outlets or platforms used by the campaign, (vii) specific potential harms of cannabis highlighted by the campaign?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 165—
Ms. Melissa Lantsman:
With regard to relations between Canada and the United States, broken down by minister: (a) how many meetings has each minister had with their American counterpart since being sworn in on October 26, 2021; and (b) what are the details of all such meetings, including the (i) date, (ii) type (in person, Zoom, etc.), (iii) agenda items, (iv) titles of American counterparts participating, (v) results from the meeting, if any?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 167—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to Prairies Economic Development Canada (PrairiesCan): (a) how many projects have received funding through PrairiesCan since the announced creation of the agency on August 12, 2021; (b) what are the details of each project in (a), including the (i) date of the announcement, (ii) project description, (iii) project location, (iv) funding recipient, (v) projected total project cost, (vi) amount of federal contribution towards the total project cost, (vii) expected completion date of the project; (c) what are the addresses of the PrairiesCan service locations in (i) Lethbridge, (ii) Fort McMurray, (iii) Grande Prairie, (iv) Regina, (v) Prince Albert, (vi) Brandon, (vii) Thompson; (d) for each location in (c), is the location currently in operation, and, if not, when will the location be in operation; (e) for each location in (c), what is the (i) 2021-22, (ii) 2022-23, operating budget; and (f) how many full-time equivalents have been assigned to work at each location in (c)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 169—
Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin:
With regard to the International Aerocity of Mirabel, managed by Aéroports de Montréal (ADM): (a) how many times has the minister responsible been consulted on the real estate development of this site since 2000; (b) for which projects involving the leasing of land on this site has the minister responsible given his approval since 2000, broken down by year; (c) for which projects involving the construction of buildings on this site has the minister responsible given his approval since 2000, broken down by year; (d) which projects involving the leasing of land on this site has the minister responsible refused to approve since 2000, broken down by year; (e) which projects involving the construction of buildings on this site has the minister responsible refused to approve since 2000, broken down by year; (f) based on what criteria does the minister responsible make the decision to approve or refuse a lease or construction project on this site; (g) in total, what is the amount of rent collected by ADM for land leases on this site for which the minister responsible has given his approval since 2000, broken down by year; (h) what foreign companies have established themselves on land on this site since 2000; (i) what steps has the federal government taken to transfer unused land on this site to the City of Mirabel, as indicated on page 28 of ADM’s 2019 annual report; (j) what are the terms and conditions of the lease between ADM and the federal government with respect to the development of this site; and (k) in what locations and in what official documents are the terms and conditions of ADM’s mission for the real estate development of industrial and commercial lands of this site, other than for its airport operations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 170—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Department of National Defence, since August 10, 2021: (a) how many existing contracts and procurements have been (i) cancelled, (ii) modified to change the order, (iii) modified with a cost increase; and (b) for all the items in (a), what are the details, including the (i) contract or procurement number, (ii) supplier, (iii) product or service being ordered, (iv) date ordered, (v) date cancelled, (vi) original cost, (vii) modified cost, (viii) reason for cancellation, (ix) reason for cost increase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 172—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Department of Health, and the regulations to the Statutes of Canada 2014, Chapter 24, also known as Vanessa’ s Law, which came into effect on December 16, 2019: (a) how much has been spent on initiatives informing medical professionals of the new mandatory reporting requirements; (b) what is the breakdown of the spending in (a), including the (i) date and the duration, (ii) type of initiative, (iii) number of recipients, (iv) amount spent, (v) description of the initiative; (c) since the regulations came into force, how many reports of adverse drug interactions and medical device incidents has the government received; and (d) what is the breakdown of each report in (c), including (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the product or drug being reported, (iv) the type of interaction or incident, (v) whether the interaction or incident resulted in a fatality?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 173—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program from municipalities in Ontario that have a Canadian Armed Forces installation, since March 2020: (a) has the government received any correspondence on issues with the PILT Program from municipalities in Ontario that have a Canadian Armed Forces installation, and, if so, what are the details of each correspondence, including (i) the municipality, (ii) the recipient, (iii) the date received by the government, (iv) whether the government responded to the correspondence; (b) for each government response to correspondence in (a), what are the details, including the (i) date of the response, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) author, (v) internal tracking or file number; and (c) what are the details of all briefing notes written since March 2020 related to the PILT Program, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date, (iv) recipient, (v) summary of content, (vi) internal tracking or file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 174—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the Department of Indutry’s Innovation Superclusters Initiative, since May 24, 2017: (a) what is the total amount spent on the initiative, broken down by (i) supercluster, (ii) year; (b) what are the number of jobs created by the initiative, broken down by (i) supercluster, (ii) project invested in, (iii) province of investment, (iv) year; (c) what is the total economic output created by the initiative, broken down by (i) supercluster, (ii) project invested in, (iii) province of investment, (iv) year; and (d) what is the total number of intellectual property (IP) assets created, broken down by (i) supercluster, (ii) project invested in, (iii) type of IP asset, (iv) province of investment, (v) year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 175—
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the acquisition or purchase of data sets, such as mobility data, on Canadians from websites, search engines, telecom providers, or other data providers, by any government department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity since March 1, 2020: what are the details of all instances where data was purchased or acquired, including (i) the date, (ii) the amount paid, if applicable, (iii) the company or organization that provided the data, (iv) the description and type of data provided, (v) whether the government requested the data or was the data offered by the company or organization, (vi) summary of data contents, (vii) how the government used the data?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 176—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to the Small Craft Harbours program: (a) for the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 fiscal years, what are the details of all project expenditures which have been made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under this program, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) project description or summary, (v) constituency; (b) what is the amount of fixed annual funding allocated to each harbour, broken down by location; and (c) what are the specific criteria and metrics used to determine how much funding is allocated to each harbour?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 180—
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to companies funded by the Natural Resources Canada’s Emissions Reduction Fund: (a) what are the names and addresses of the headquarters of all companies which received funding from the Offshore or Onshore Program; and (b) broken down by company funded, what are the details of each grant, including (i) the date signed, (ii) the start and end date, (iii) the total dollar amount, (iv) the list of outcomes or metrics the company must report to the government with respect to emissions reduction, (v) what are the deadlines for which the company must meet any specific metrics or outcomes, broken down by target or requirement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 181—
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to the offices of the Minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations, Minister for Indigenous Services, and Minister of Northern Affairs from July 1, 2016, to December 8, 2021: (a) how much was spent on contracts for (i) temporary employment, (ii) consultants, (iii) advice; (b) what are the details of all contracts related to (a), including for each (i) the date and duration of the contract, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the value of the contract, (iv) the description of services provided, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bid process, (vi) the file number; and (c) what are the names of the individuals who provided the services to the minister’s office in relation to the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 182—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the February 9, 2021, announcement from the government that self-employed individuals who applied for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and would have qualified based on their gross income will not be required to repay the benefit, provided they also met all other eligibility requirements: (a) how many CERB recipients had their repayment obligations waived related to this decision; (b) what is the estimated cost to the Treasury of the decision announced on February 9, 2021; (c) how much money did the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada return to individuals who had already repaid the amounts owing related to this criteria before the government made this announcement; and (d) how many individuals were returned money related to (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 184—
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the government's hotel quarantine being run by a third party at the Hilton Toronto Airport Hotel and Suites for certain returning international travellers: (a) what company or organization is the third party running the quarantine operation; (b) how much is the company or organization being paid to run the hotel quarantine; (c) how much was this Hilton Toronto Airport and Suites paid by the government to have their hotel used as a quarantine facility; (d) why were some mothers staying at the facility denied access to formula for their infants; (e) on what date did the government become aware that some mothers were being denied access to infant formula; (f) what specific steps did the government take to rectify the situation in (d), and on what date was each step taken; (g) why were individuals with food allergies and other dietary restrictions not allowed access to food that they can eat at the quarantine hotel; (h) on what date did the government become aware that certain individuals did not have access to food to which they were not allergic to; (i) what specific steps were taken to rectify the situation in (g), and on what date was each step taken; (j) what specific measures were included in the terms of the government's agreement with the quarantine facility operator related to access to fresh air for travellers; (k) why did some travellers experience delays of over 24 hours between when they received a negative test result and when the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) allowed them to leave the facility; and (l) what specific steps did the PHAC take to address the delays in (k), and on what date was each step taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 186—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) recipients who received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada Recovery Benefit, the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit: (a) what are the details, including the findings, of any studies, analyses, estimates or projections of the impact of reducing the monthly amount of the CCB; (b) for the documents in (a), what are their titles and dates; (c) have any projections been made of the impact of the monthly reduction in the CCB on families with incomes below the low income cutoff; (d) of the projections referred to in (c), what are their titles and dates; and (e) what are the findings of the projections referred to in (c)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 187—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Canada Workers Benefit (CWB) recipients who received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB) and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB): (a) how many CWB recipients received the (i) CERB, (ii) CRB, (iii) CRCB, (iv) CRSB; (b) of the applicants in (a), how many single individuals reported income over the adjusted net income in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted net income in the 2019 tax year; (c) of the applicants in (a), how many single individuals reported adjusted net income over $24,573 in the 2020 tax year compared to the higher adjusted net income in the 2019 tax year; (d) of the applicants in (a), how many families reported income over the adjusted family net income in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted family net income in the 2019 tax year; (e) of the applicants in (a), how many families reported income over the adjusted family net income of $37,173 in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted family net income in the 2019 tax year; (f) of the applicants in (a), how many had their monthly CWB amount reduced in 2021 compared to 2020, broken down by (i) single individuals, (ii) families; (g) of the applicants in (f), what was the average monthly reduction in their CWB payment, broken down by each month in 2021; (h) of the applicants in (f), how many receive the disability supplement; (i) of the applicants in (g), how many single individuals reported income over the adjusted net income in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted net income in the 2019 tax year; (j) of the applicants in (g), how many single individuals reported adjusted net income over $30,511 in the 2020 tax year compared to the higher adjusted net income in the 2019 tax year; (k) of the applicants in (h), how many families reported income over the adjusted family net income in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted family net income in the 2019 tax year; (l) of the applicants in (h), how many families reported income over the adjusted family net income of $43,118 in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted family net income in the 2019 tax year; (m) of the applicants in (h), how many had their monthly disability supplement payment reduced in 2021 compared to 2020, broken down by (i) single individuals, (ii) families; and (n) of the applications in (m), what was the average monthly reduction in their disability supplement payment, broken down by each month in 2021?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 188—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Canada Workers Benefit (CWB), broken down by province: (a) how many recipients had their CWB reduced because they received income support from a COVID-19 financial assistance program, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit; and (b) of the applicants in (a), what was the average monthly reduction in their CWB payment, broken down by each month in 2021?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 189—
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to government agreements related to the development or production of COVID-19 vaccines in Canada: (a) what companies or organizations currently have agreements with the government related to developing or producing made-in-Canada vaccines in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (b) what are the details of each agreement, including the (i) date of the agreement, (ii) name of the company or organization, (iii) location of the development or production, (iv) amount of government contribution, (v) type of the contribution, (grant, repayable loan, etc.), (vi) expected date of approval, (vii) date when production is expected to begin, (viii) amount of vaccine expected to be produced each month, (ix) timetables agreed to?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 190—
Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the opioid crisis in Canada: (a) what are the government's estimates on the number of opioid related deaths in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021 to date; (b) for each estimate in (a), how many of those deaths were accidental; (c) what is the estimated number of total overdose deaths in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021 to date; (d) for each estimate in (c), what percentage of those deaths involved opioids; (e) what are the government's targets related to reducing the number of opioid related deaths in (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (f) what specific measures will the government implement in 2022 to reduce the number of opioid deaths and on what date will each measure be implemented?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 191—
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the sale of federal properties since January 1, 2020: what are the details of each federal property sold, including the (i) province or territory, (ii) city, (iii) street address, (iv) type of listing (residential, office, etc.), (v) asking price, (vi) sale price, if different than the asking price, (vii) buyer, (viii) future use of the property, if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 192—
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to the $50 million to support Indigenous tourism initiatives as part of the Tourism Relief Fund announced in Budget 2021: (a) what was the policy rationale for administering these funds through regional economic development agencies rather than through an Indigenous organization; (b) for each regional economic development agency, how many Indigenous tourism operators have applied and how many have received funding to this date; (c) what are the names, locations and amounts contributed to the recipients in (b); and (d) have there been any complaints regarding the application process?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 193—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy and the statement by the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion on December 7, 2021, that the government's National Housing Strategy has a rural lens to it: (a) what are the details of the rural lens applied to the National Housing Strategy; (b) when and how was the rural lens developed; (c) who was responsible for developing the rural lens; (d) what is definition of "rural community" when using a rural lens for the program; (e) what specific criteria is used for determining which communities are included as a rural community; (f) how did the government calculate that 38% of Rapid Housing Initiative projects are in rural and Indigenous communities; (g) what is the breakdown of (f) by type of community, including the amount of money that has been spent in communities that fit under the definition in (d); and (h) what are the government's targets for the number of houses built through the Rapid Housing Initiative, by type of community?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 195—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to dealings between the government and foreign law enforcement or security bodies: (a) what agreements are currently in place related to security and intelligence sharing with foreign states which have not ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UN CAT); (b) does the government ever share the personal information of Canadian citizens with security or intelligence units of states that have not ratified the UN CAT, and, if so, under what circumstances; (c) what steps does the government take to ensure that security and intelligence information shared with other states does not lead to acts of torture abroad; (d) which members of the government, government caucus or public service have met with members or representatives of security or intelligence organs of a state that had not ratified the UN CAT, in the last 12 months; (e) what are the details of each of meeting referred to in (d), including the (i) date, (ii) attendees, (iii) purpose of meeting, (iv) meeting outcome, (v) agenda items; (f) is the government examining or considering any changes to existing security or intelligence sharing agreements with nations that have not ratified the UN CAT, and, if so, what changes are being examined or considered, and is the government contemplating the signing of new agreements in this area with such states; and (g) did the government raise issues respecting human rights in general or the treatment of detainees in particular during any meetings referred to in (d), and, if so, during which meetings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 196—
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the agreements entered into by the government signatories for procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, or vaccine candidates, that were provided to the Standing Committee on Health in June 2021: (a) did the government delay or defer its provision of the agreements to the committee for the purpose of providing a copy of each agreement to the committee simultaneously; (b) why were the provisions of the Access to Information Act used as the basis for determining which pieces of information to withhold from the committee; (c) which other standards were considered and rejected as the basis for determining which pieces of information to withhold from the committee; (d) did feedback from any of the counterparties influence which standards were used or rejected as the basis for determining which pieces of information to withhold from the committee, and, if so, which counterparties provided such feedback and what was the feedback in summary; (e) for each agreement, after the effective date, (i) how many, on what dates, and under what authorities has the government received requests or orders for disclosure of the agreement, in whole or in part, (ii) on what date did the government signatory first engage the counterparty relating to the disclosure of the agreement to the committee, (iii) on what date was the final agreement between the government signatory and the counterparty reached relating to the disclosure of the agreement to the committee, (iv) what were the actions taken by the government, pursuant to the agreement, in order to disclose the agreement to the committee, (v) which sections of the agreement were engaged for the purpose of disclosing the agreement to the committee; and (f) with regard to the sections of the agreements relating to confidentiality and disclosure, including but not limited to section 16 through 16B (Sanofi), section 22 through 22.4 (Medicago), section 16 through 16.8 (AstraZeneca), section 7 through 7.6 (Moderna), section 10 through 10.4 (Pfizer), section 13 through 13.6 (Novavax), and section 17 through 17.8 (Janssen), (i) is Parliament, including any of its powers or constituent or subsidiary parts, explicitly included, or should be reasonably understood to be included, in any exclusions to the sections and, if so, to what extent or, if not, why not, (ii) did the government signatory seek or receive legal advice on the applicability of the sections with respect to orders or powers of Parliament, including any of its constituent or subsidiary parts and, if so, what were the conclusions and recommendations of that advice in summary or, if not, why not, (iii) did the government signatory seek or receive legal advice with respect to a potential conflict between the rights and powers of Parliament, or its committees, and the requirements of the sections and, if so, what were the conclusions and recommendations of that advice in summary or, if not, why not, (iv) were the terms of the sections initially proposed by the government signatory and, if so, from what document, policy, or other source did the terms of the sections originate, (v) in the course of negotiating the contract or agreement, did the government signatory propose or seek agreement for less stringent terms in the sections and, if so, what was the response of the counterparty in summary, (vi) were the Governor in Council, the designated minister, or the head of the institution consulted on the terms of, or agreement to, the sections, (vii) was agreement to the sections approved by the Governor in Council, the designated minister, or the head of the institution, (viii) what are the reasons the government signatories agreed to the terms of the sections, (ix) was the government signatory aware, at or before the effective date, of the text or terms of analogous sections agreed to by foreign governments in analogous contracts or agreements and, if so, to what extent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 198—
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the Chemical Management Regime as found under the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment and the Public Health Agency of Canada in the Supplementary Estimates (A) 2021-22: (a) what were the planned and actual expenditures of the Chemicals Management Plan from 2018-19 to 2020- 21, broken down by fiscal year and by program activity; and (b) what are the transfer payments following the reclassification of the Chemical Management Plan to the Chemical Management Regime in 2021-22?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 199—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) recipients who have received payments from any support program related to COVID-19 and have experienced a reduction in GIS or become ineligible for GIS: (a) on what date did the government become aware of the risk of a GIS reduction or loss by recipients; (b) how many internal memos, presentations or other similar documents have been prepared by the government on the risk of GIS ineligibility; (c) of the documents in (b), what are their titles and dates; (d) how many meetings were held between ministerial offices and departments, including the (i) date, (ii) name and title of participants, (iii) format (in-person, Zoom, etc.); and (e) how much correspondence has been received by the government on the issue of recipients who experience a reduction or loss of their GIS?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 200—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to renovations made by the government at the residences used by the Prime Minister, including Harrington Lake, Rideau Cottage, and 24 Sussex Drive: (a) what are the details of all renovations completed since July 1, 2020, including, for each project, the (i) name of the property, (ii) detailed description of renovations or work completed, (iii) items or features added to the property or renovated at the property, (iv) date of completion, (v) total cost of the project, (vi) itemized breakdown of costs; and (b) what are the details of all renovations which started after July 1, 2020, and are still ongoing, including, for each, the (i) name of the property, (ii) detailed description of renovations or work completed, (iii) items or features added to the property or renovated at the property, (iv) anticipated date of completion, (v) total cost of the project, (vi) itemized breakdown of costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 201—
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the Governor in Council appointments and the appointment of the Clerk of the House of Commons: (a) is the clerk, as a Governor in Council appointee, subject to the Privy Council Office's Ethical and Political Activity Guidelines for Public Office Holders, and, if so, (i) is the position considered, for the purposes of the guidelines, to be a quasi-judicial one which is subject to a much more stringent standard and should generally avoid all political activities, (ii) is the clerk subject to the general principle of refraining from participating in political activity, including expressing partisan views in a public setting where this may reasonably be seen to be incompatible with, or impair the ability to discharge, the office holder's public duties, (iii) are the guidelines considered to be a term and condition of appointment, (iv) did the current clerk certify that he will comply with the guidelines; (b) is the clerk, as a Governor in Council appointee, eligible for a Governor in Council appointee performance pay, and, if so, (i) what was the maximum performance pay he was eligible for, since 2017-18, broken down by fiscal year, (ii) what performance award was he provided (did not meet, succeeded, surpassed, etc.) each fiscal year since 2017-18, (iii) what performance pay was he provided each fiscal year since 2017-18, broken down by fiscal year, (iv) is the clerk required to deliver on the government's objectives and corporate commitments in order to receive a performance award, and, if so, what objectives and commitments, (A) was the clerk required to meet, (B) did the clerk meet, broken down by fiscal year since 2017-18, (v) who provided input or feedback, or was otherwise consulted, on the clerk's performance, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18, (vi) who approved the clerk's performance awards, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 202—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to federal funding for housing construction since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of funding for the construction of housing in Canada, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program; (b) what is the total amount of housing construction announced by the government using the funds identified in (a), broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) municipality, (iv) program, (v) type of residence; and (c) what is the total actual amount of housing actually built using the funds identified in (a), broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) municipality, (iv) program, (v) type of residence?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 203—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), since June 22, 2017: (a) what is the total amount of federal funding given to the CIB, broken down by year; (b) what are the details of all infrastructure investments made by the bank, including, for each project, the (i) name, (ii) location, (iii) description, (iv) date the agreement was signed, (v) total agreed expenditure by the CIB, (vi) total expenditures to date by the CIB, (vii) agreed completion date, (viii) current expected completion date; and (c) what is the yearly amount spent by the CIB on (i) salaries, (ii) bonuses, (iii) consulting fees, (iv) rent or lease payments, (v) travel, (vi) hospitality, (vii) infrastructure programs, (viii) other expenses, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 204—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the level of government investments in mental health since 2017 through the Shared Health Priorities and the bilateral agreements between the federal government and provinces and territories, since 2017: (a) what is the status of the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s (CIHI) development and release of additional mental health and substance use health indicators to track system performance on an annual basis beyond 2022; (b) what is the status of CIHI developing a comprehensive dataset capturing public and private mental health and substance use health spending, by province and territory and category of spending; and (c) what amount of funding have Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada invested directly in community mental health and addictions organizations, programs and services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 205—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to government investments in Indigenous mental health, since 2015: (a) what steps has the federal government taken to (i) establish measurable goals to identify and close the gaps in mental health and addictions outcomes with Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples, (ii) adopt common investment models and deepened integration among federal funding bodies and between federal, provincial and territorial funding bodies; and (b) what steps has the government taken to (i) reorient investments in support of Indigenous community wellness plans, (ii) increase the mental health and substance use workforce serving Indigenous communities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 206—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to government action towards addressing the opioid epidemic: (a) what concrete steps has the government taken to (i) increase the number and accessibility of supervised consumption sites, (ii) decriminalize simple drug possession, (iii) increase access to diversion programs and alternative justice strategies for people accused and convicted of drug crimes, especially for First Nations, Métis and Inuit persons; and (b) since 2015, how much funding has the government disbursed to provinces, territories and community-based organizations for substance use treatments and supports?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 207—
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to Canada Child Benefit (CCB) recipients who received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB) and Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB): (a) how many CCB recipients received (i) CERB, (ii) CRB, (iii) CRCB, (iv) CRSB; (b) how many reported income above the adjusted family net income in fiscal year 2020-21 compared to fiscal year 2019-20; (c) of the recipients in (a), how many experienced a reduction in their monthly CCB payment in 2021 compared to 2020; (d) of the recipients in (c), how many have a net family income of less than (i) $40,000, (ii) $30,000, (iii) $20,000; (e) of the recipients in (c), what was the average monthly reduction in their CCB payment, broken down by month in 2021; and (f) of the recipients in (c), how many are receiving the (i) CCB young child supplement, (ii) child disability benefit?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 208—
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) recipients, broken down by province and territories: (a) how many recipients have experienced a decrease in their CCB since July 2021 because they received payments from a COVID-19 financial support program, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit; and (b) of those recipients in (a), what was the average monthly reduction in their CCB payment, broken down by each month in 2021?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 209—
Mr. Frank Caputo:
With regard to the backlog of cases at Veterans Affairs Canada: (a) what is the number of backlog applications for disability benefits as of December 8, 2021; (b) what is the current backlog in terms of time between when an application for benefits is made and the veteran finally receives the benefits; (c) what specific steps have been taken to address the backlog, and when was each step implemented; and (d) what are the government's precise targets for the amount of the backlog that will be reduced by (i) April 1, 2022, (ii) July 1, 2022, (iii) October 1, 2022, (iv) January 1, 2023?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 211—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to proposed Marine Refuge Areas and Marine Protected Areas, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, such as the Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge: what are the details of each proposed refuge and area, including the (i) area description, size and location, (ii) scientific justification, (iii) list of species, ecosystems, or other organisms in need of protection, (iv) proposed level of control (i.e. up to no take zones), (v) current stage of proposal, (vi) stage of the consultation or development process, (vii) projected timeline for when a decision will be made on the proposed refuge?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 213—
Mrs. Rachael Thomas:
With regard to the impact of COVID-19 measures on private companies and organizations that rent commercial space from the government in the National Capital Region (NCR): (a) what is the total amount of rent collected each month since January 1, 2020; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of company or organization (retail, non-profit, etc.); (c) what is the total number of clients that paid rent to the government each month since January 1, 2020; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by type of company or organization; (e) how many clients terminated their lease with the government since March 13, 2020, broken down by type of company or organization; (f) how many new clients have signed leases since March 13, 2020, broken down by type of company or organization; (g) how much commercial space owned by the government is currently vacant and available for lease, broken down by type of space; and (h) for each answer in (a) through (g), what is the breakdown on the (i) Ontario side, (ii) Quebec side of the NCR?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 215—
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the claim that “[s]ince 2015, the Government of Canada has made available over $7.2 billion to close this unacceptable gap in service” contained in the document entitled "Canada’s Rural Economic Development Strategy: Progress Report", August 2021 related to connectivity for rural Canadians: (a) what is the breakdown of the $7.2 billion by initiative or program; and (b) what are the details of all projects which received more than $10,000 of the $7.2 billion, including the (i) amount of federal contribution, (ii) start and end dates of the project, (iii) project description, (iv) project location, (v) funding recipient, (vi) company involved in the project, if different from the funding recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 216—
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, between January and November 2021: (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 Lambton—Kent—Middlesex 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 Lambton—Kent—Middlesex 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. 217—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, between December 2020 and December 2021: (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 sub granting 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. 218—
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to fully vaccinated travelers being forced to quarantine due to issues with the ArriveCAN application, including not pre-registering on app: (a) how many such individuals returning from the United States by land were required to quarantine between (i) November 22, 2021 and November 29, 2021, (ii) November 30, 2021, and December 7, 2021, (iii) since December 7, 2021; (b) were the travellers in (a)(ii), who were still under quarantine as of December 7, 2021, informed that their quarantine requirement had been removed following the minister's additional guidance to CBSA regarding ArriveCAN usage by travellers, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) how they were told, (ii) on what date they were told; (c) what was the average amount of time impacted quarantined travellers were unnecessarily in quarantine between the time the guidance was issued and when they were informed they were no longer required to quarantine; and (d) have any such individuals returning from the United States by land been required to quarantine since December 7, 2021, despite the additional guidance from the minister, and, if so, how many?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 219—
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the statement in the Chamber on December 9, 2021, by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development, and Disability Inclusion that "my office and my department follow up on every allegation of fraud, and this would be no exception": what specific actions did the (i) minister's office, (ii) department take to follow up on the allegation made on a Calgary radio station about the member from Calgary Skyview, and when was each action taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 221—
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 December 1, 2021, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 222—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to new housing constructions in Canada under federal housing programs since 2015, broken down by year, province, stream, and units: (a) how much funding has been committed under pre-National Housing Strategy (NHS) programs (i) in total, (ii) to projects that have reached finalized agreements, (iii) to projects that have conditional commitments without a finalized agreement; (b) how much funding has been committed under the NHS (i) in total, (ii) to projects that have reached finalized agreements, (iii) to projects that have conditional commitments without a finalized agreement; and (c) how many units funded under pre-NHS and NHS programs have completed construction?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 223—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to federal housing programs: (a) since 2015, broken down by year, province, program and units, how many social housing operating agreements receiving federal funding (i) were active on January 1st for each year, (ii) have ended, (iii) have been renewed; (b) since 2015, broken down by year, province, program and units, how much federal funding has been provided through social housing operating agreements; (c) broken down by province and program, how many units of social housing under the National Housing Strategy (i) are expected to be built, (ii) have finalized agreements and (iii) have conditional commitments; and (d) broken down by year and program, how many units of social housing have been built since 1946?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 224—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to Canadian citizens and permanent residents returning from travel from countries subject to quarantine orders due to variant B.1.1.529, since November 2021: (a) how many travelers were not allowed to leave their quarantine facility upon receiving a negative test result; (b) of the travelers in (a), what was the average length of stay before being allowed to leave the quarantine facility; (c) for what reasons were travelers in (a) not permitted to leave their facility upon testing negative; (d) for travelers in (a), what measures of the Public Health Agency of Canada protocol were not followed; (e) for how many travelers were the Public Health Agency of Canada unable to verify compliance with quarantine orders, as a proportion of total arrivals; and (f) of the total number of tests conducted under these new quarantine orders, how many were missing or unable to be matched to a traveler?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 226—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Universal Broadband Fund and the government's commitment to provide high-speed Internet services to 98% of Canadians by 2026 and 100% by 2030, broken down by province and territory: (a) how many applications for funding were received; (b) of those applications in (a), how many were approved; (c) what is the total amount distributed by the fund since its official launch; (d) how many applications were classified as coming from a local government district; (e) what are the details of all funds awarded, including the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) project description or summary; (f) of the details in (e), how many jobs were created, broken down by (i) federal riding, (ii) municipality, (iii) census agglomeration, (iv) census metropolitan area, (v) economic region; (g) of the jobs in (f) how many are directly related to (i) the Universal Broadband Fund, (ii) provincial government initiatives, (iii) municipal initiatives; and (h) what is the percentage of Canadians with access to high speed internet service to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 227—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the government's $49 million investment in Mastercard's Intelligence and Cyber Centre in Vancouver made through the Strategic Innovation Fund, since January 23, 2020: (a) to date, what is the actual number of jobs (i) created directly by this investment, (ii) maintained directly by this investment; (b) for the jobs in (a), where are they located and how many are (i) full-time, (ii) part-time, (iii) permanent, (iv) temporary; (c) what method was used to estimate that 380 jobs would be maintained and created through this $49 million investment; (d) how is the government ensuring that its $49 million investment meets the objectives of its National Cyber Security Strategy; (e) to date, what are the objectives of its National Cyber Security Strategy that this investment has achieved; (f) what are the conditions attached to this investment; (g) which of the conditions in (f) have not been met; and (h) until what date must the conditions in (f) be respected?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 228—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): (a) since March 2020, including both the total number as well as change from the previous month or quarter, how many staff members has the PHAC employed in each month or quarter; and (b) in each month or quarter, how many of each of the following kinds of employee did PHAC employ, including both the total number as well as change from the previous month or quarter, (i) medical professionals and experts, (ii) communications personnel, (iii) administrative and operations personnel, (iv) policy personnel?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 229—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Fall 2020 Economic Statement which promised more urban parks to protect nature and designating or creating ecological corridors to provide connectivity across landscapes and investing in more natural infrastructure to protect against climate change and the management of Ojibway Shores in Windsor, Ontario: (a) what are the government’s plans to transfer Ojibway Shores from (i) the Windsor Port Authority to Transport Canada, (ii) Transport Canada to Parks Canada, to begin the establishment of a new National Urban Park in Windsor; and (b) is the government planning to work with the Province of Ontario, Indigenous Peoples, local environmental groups and land trusts to connect the federal lands like Ojibway shores and Point Pelee with Rondeau and other protected areas and to ensure that they remain well managed for biodiversity, climate change and the benefit of Ontarians and all Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 230—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE): (a) how many complaints have been received; (b) how many complaints have been investigated, broken down by status or outcome (e.g. review is ongoing, referred to arbitration, allegation determined to have been unfounded); and (c) how many times has the CORE provided advice to the Minister on any matter relating to their mandate (i) in total, (ii) broken down by month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 231—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Canada’s vaccine procurement and international vaccine commitments: (a) how many COVID-19 vaccines has Canada accessed through COVAX, broken down by month; (b) how many COVID-19 vaccines does Canada currently have access to in general; (c) how many COVID-19 vaccines has the government committed to donating through COVAX or other initiatives; (d) how many COVID-19 vaccines has the government donated to date, broken down by country and initiative (e.g. COVAX); and (e) what timelines has the government committed to for fulfilling its COVAX commitments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 233—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: (a) broken down by country and year since 2015, how many Temporary Resident Visa applications have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) refused, (iv) refused under 179(b); (b) which immigration streams use the Chinook tool for assessing applications; (c) at which stages in the application step is the Chinook tool used; (d) what measures are in place to ensure that immigration officers are able to provide the same consideration with the Chinook tool on the circumstances of an application as they would without the tool; (e) broken down by year and stream, how many applications that have had the Chinook tool used in the assessment process since the tool has been put to use have been (i) accepted, (ii) refused; (f) for the streams and time period identified in (e), broken down by year and stream, how many applications that have not had the Chinook tool used in the assessment process have been (i) accepted, (ii) refused; and (g) broken down by year since 2015, what are the details of any briefing notes on the Chinook tool provided to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship since 2015, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 234—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Canadian humanitarian and development funding in Afghanistan: (a) what is the total amount of development funding Canada has committed to Afghanistan for 2021-2025; (b) how much of this funding in (a) is allocated through Canadian organizations, and what is the breakdown by (i) organization, (ii) date, (iii) project, (iv) status; (c) what is the total humanitarian funding Canada has allocated to Afghanistan for 2021 and 2022; (d) how much of this is allocated through Canadian organizations, and what is the breakdown by (i) organization, (ii) date, (iii) project, (iv) status; (e) how many current signed contracts does Canada have with Canadian organizations for humanitarian or development programming in Afghanistan; (f) what is the status of all contracts with Canadian organizations working in Afghanistan (i.e. operational, on hold, cancelled); and (g) what is the current guidance given by the government to Canadian organizations working in Afghanistan regarding risk and exposure to criminal liability?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 235—
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the government's existing commitment to the eradication of HIV/AIDS: (a) what actions are being taken to accelerate the eradication of the virus; (b) how much federal funding has been allocated and spent so far, broken down by year and government department; (c) how many HIV self-test kits have been purchased by the government and how are they being distributed, broken down by province and territory; (d) what is the amount of federal funding being spent on funding anti-retroviral medications and delivery programs, broken down by province and territory; and (e) what specific programs are in place to ensure there is access to HIV testing and treatment for rural, remote, Indigenous, racialized, and marginalized Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 236—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to tugboats under 15 gross tons registered with Transport Canada, since 2015 and broken down by year: (a) how many safety inspections undertaken by Transport Canada officials have occurred to ensure compliance with the Canada Shipping Act and related regulations; (b) for inspections undertaken in (a), how many registered vessels were found to not be in compliance, broken down by safety issue; and (c) how many such vessels have been involved in marine incidents reported to Transport Canada or the Transportation Safety Board, broken down by year and type of accident?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 237—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the end of the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB): (a) what are the details, including the conclusions, of any studies, analyses, estimates or projections of the impact of the decision to end the CRB; (b) of the documents mentioned in (a), what are their titles and dates; (c) has an impact study or studies been conducted to assess its effect on self-employed workers, including (i) independent contractors, (ii) workers on online platforms, (iii) workers on contracted businesses, (iv) on-call workers and temporary workers; (d) of the documents mentioned in (c), what are their titles and dates; (e) what are the findings of the studies referred to in (d); (f) what are the anticipated impacts on low-income workers; (g) what are the findings of the projections referred to in (f); (h) has a gender-based analysis been conducted as part of this decision and, if so, what are the findings; and (i) does the government have any figures or projections on the financial impact of the end of the CRB on low-income individuals and, if so, what are the findings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 238—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to Canada Child Benefit (CCB) recipients who received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canadian Economic Recovery Benefit (CRB), the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB), and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB), broken down by province and territory, since July 2021: (a) how many beneficiaries experienced a reduction in their monthly CCB payment compared to the monthly payments in the corresponding months of the benefit years (i) 2019-20, (ii) 2020-21; (b) of the beneficiaries in (a), how many have (i) income below the official Canadian Poverty Line, (ii) income below 50% of the median income, (iii) spend 20% more than the average family on food, shelter and clothing; and (c) of the recipients in (a), how many have a total annual income of (i) between $30,000 and $60,000, (ii) between $60,000 and $80,000, (iii) between $80,000 and $100,000?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 241—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to marine protected areas, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how much funding has been directed towards the identifications and protection of marine protected areas; (b) broken down by province and territory, how many full-time permanent jobs have been created; (c) how much funding has been provided to Indigenous Guardian programs; and (d) through consultation with Indigenous peoples, what species have been identified as priority species at imminent risk of disappearing?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 242—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to government funding for fiscal years 2019-20 and 2020-21 allocated within the constituency of Nanaimo—Ladysmith: what is the total funding amount, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) department or agency, (iii) initiative, (iv) amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 243—
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to Pacific Economic Development Canada (PacifiCan): (a) how many projects have received funding through PacifiCan since the announced creation of the agency in August 2021; (b) what are the details of each project in (a), including the (i) date of the announcement, (ii) project description, (iii) project location, (iv) funding recipient, (v) projected total project cost, (vi) amount of federal contribution towards the total project cost, (vii) expected completion date of the project; (c) what are the addresses of the service locations in (i) Victoria, (ii) Campbell River, (iii) Prince Rupert, (iv) Fort St. John, (v) Prince George, (vi) Kelowna (vii) Cranbrook; (d) for each location in (c), is the location currently in operation, and, if not, when will the location be in operation; (e) for each location in (c), what is the (i) 2021-22, (ii) 2022-23, operating budget; (f) how many full-time equivalents (FTEs) have been assigned to work at each location in (c); (g) what is the address of the headquarters in Surrey; (h) how many FTEs have been assigned to work at the (i) Surrey, (ii) Vancouver locations; (i) what is the operating budget for (i) 2021-22, (ii) 2022-23 for the Vancouver PacifiCan office; (j) what is the operating budget for (i) 2021- 22, (ii) 2022-23 for the Surrey PacifiCan office; (k) how many FTEs are being or have been transferred from the previous Western Economic Diversification Canada (WED) office in Vancouver to the new PacifiCan offices; and (l) how many former WED employees have been transferred to each location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 244—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the caretaker convention: (a) is the government, as of the date of the notice of this question, observing the caretaker convention; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative (i) when did the government cease observing the caretaker convention, (ii) what prompted this change, (iii) was that consistent with section 1 of the Privy Council Office's "Guidelines on the conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, exempt staff and public servants during an election" publication which provides that the caretaker period "ends when a new government is sworn-in, or when an election result returning an incumbent government is clear"; (c) what is the government's definition of "when an election result returning an incumbent government is clear" in cases where the government party represents fewer than a majority of seats in the House of Commons; (d) did the government consider the November 25, 2021, House of Commons vote on Government Motion No. 1 (business of the House and its committees) to be a confidence vote; and (e) if the answer to (d) is negative, were Governor in Council appointments (i) P.C. 2021-0969 through P.C. 2021-0985 (November 29, 2021), (ii) P.C. 2021-0988 through P.C. 2021-0991 (December 1, 2021), each consistent with the caretaker convention and, if so, why?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 245—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to the impact of the government's cap on emissions produced by Canada's oil and gas sector: (a) how much foreign oil is projected to be imported into Canada broken down by year for each of the next 20 years, and how much of that amount is to make up for the anticipated shortfall due to the cap; (b) has the government done any analysis on the impact of the cap on the Northern Alberta economy, and, if so, what were the findings; (c) what is the exact cap on oil and gas emissions broken down by year for each of the next 20 years; (d) what is the breakdown by country of where the foreign oil imported into Canada will come from, broken down by year for the next 20 years; (e) what is the government's policy regarding the importation of oil from countries with unacceptable human rights records; (g) what is the government's policy regarding the importation of oil from countries with lower environmental regulations than Canada's; and (h) what precise actions, if any, is the government planning to take to ensure that Canadian oil producers are not put at a further competitive disadvantage to that of their foreign competitors as a result of the cap, and when will each action be taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 246—
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to each of the 42 long-term drinking water advisories on public systems on reserves which were still in place as of December 9, 2021: (a) which of the advisories will be lifted by the end of 2022; and (b) for each advisory which will not be lifted by the end of 2022 (i) what is the expected date when the advisory will be lifted, (ii) what is preventing the government from fixing the problem and lifting the advisory prior to the end of 2022?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 247—
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to the June 23, 2021 contract awarded to Lifelabs for $66,307,424.27 listed on proactive disclosure: (a) what are the Treasury Board guidelines related to contracts over a certain value requiring the approval of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement; (b) did the then Minister of Public Services and Procurement approve the contract to life labs; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, who at Public Services and Procurement Canada approved the contract; (d) on what date was the contract modified by $37,501,883.50 from $28,805,540.77 to $66,307,424.27; (e) what was the reason for the modification in (d); (f) who approved the modified amount, and on what date did the Minister of Public Services and Procurement become aware of the modification to the contract; (g) what was the contract for; (h) how many companies bid on the contract; and (i) did the then Minister of Public Services and Procurement recuse herself from any dealings involving contracts bid on by Lifelabs, and, if so, when did the recusal take place?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 248—
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to COVID-19 transmission within Canada: (a) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while on a domestic flight, (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021; (b) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while in an airport (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021; (c) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while on a VIA Rail train (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021; and (d) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while in a VIA Rail train station (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 249—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Department of National Defence: of those placed on administrative leave for non-compliance with CDS Directive 002 released November 2021, how many were (i) in their 24th year of service, (ii) on medical leave, (iii) undergoing remedial measures?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 251—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to Canadian Environmental Protection Act investigations and prosecutions during 2020-21, broken down by category of offence: (a) how many investigations were conducted; (b) how many investigations have resulted in prosecutions; (c) how many prosecutions have resulted in convictions; (d) what was the average length in days of an investigation that resulted in a conviction, from initiation to either laying of charges or discontinuation for (i) small and medium enterprises, (ii) large enterprises; (e) how much money was spent investigating violations by small and medium enterprises, broken down by industry; (f) how much money was spent on investigating violations by large businesses, broken down by industry; (g) how much money was spent prosecuting violations by small and medium enterprises, broken down by type of business; and (h) how much money was spent prosecuting violations by large enterprises, broken down by type of business?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 252—
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the recommendation from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report entitled “The Criminalization of HIV Non-Disclosure in Canada”, which calls on the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to immediately establish a federal-provincial working group to develop a common prosecutorial directive for dealing with the criminalization of HIV: (a) has the Minister of Justice convened the working group; (b) if not, when will the Minister of Justice convene the working group and who will be invited to participate in the working group; and (c) will the mandate of such a working group include (i) a deadline for reporting back, (ii) clear instructions to consider the impacts of prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure on Indigenous, racialized, and marginalized Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 253—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to the Canada School of Public Service, broken down by department: (a) how many government employees, by unit and percentage of total employees, have completed the Indigenous Learning Series, as of June 10, 2021; (b) is participation in the Indigenous Learning Series mandatory; (c) are new employees expected to complete any part of the Indigenous Learning Series as part of their training; (d) how many employees have access to the available learning products of the Indigenous Learning Series; (e) are employees, both new and experienced, given time to complete training through the Indigenous Learning Series during contracted working hours; and (f) what percentage of content available through the Canada School of Public Service is available in an Indigenous language?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 254—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to government investments in long-term care and home care in Nunavut, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how much funding has been promised to Nunavut for the purpose of home and community care services; (b) of the funding in (a), how much of that funding has been delivered; (c) how much funding has been delivered towards the implementation of the international Resident Assessment Instrument; and (d) how much funding has been provided towards the transportation to long-term care facilities outside of Nunavut to (i) seniors and elders, (ii) family members?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 256—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB): (a) since 2017, broken down by year, province, and project sector, how much (i) federal funding, (ii) private funding, (iii) total funding, has been provided for Canadian infrastructure projects; (b) since 2017, broken down by year, province, and project sector, how many CIB projects have been (i) conceptualized, (ii) started, (iii) completed, (iv) cancelled; (c) since 2017, broken down by year, province, and project sector, what percentage of available funds have been spent when compared to budget targets established by CIB Leadership and the government; (d) since 2017, broken down by year, province, and project sector, how many projects were denied because programs were oversubscribed; and (e) since 2017, broken down by year, province, and project sector, what percentage of private funding has come from (i) Canadian investors, (ii) US investors, (iii) other international investors?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 257—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to accessible housing in Canada: (a) since 2010, broken down by year, province, and units, how many units of accessible housing existed in Canada in total; (b) since 2010, broken down by year, province, and units, how much federal funding has been provided to (i) build accessible housing units, (ii) convert housing to accessible units, (iii) maintain and improve accessible units; (c) how many accessible units funded under the National Housing Strategy and its previous programs have (i) completed construction, (ii) been lost or decommissioned?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 258—
Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to the government’s operation of call centres: (a) what are the details of each call centre operated by or on behalf of the government, including (i) the department or program, as applicable, for which it provides services, (ii) the purpose, (iii) the location, (iv) whether it operates wholly or in part with remote staff; (b) for each call centre in (a), is it wholly or in part the object of a tender or contract for third-party provision of services, and, if so, what are the details of the contracts, including the (i) name of the vendor, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) term of the contract; and (c) for each call centre in (b), was a business case for contracting out carried out, and, if so, what were the justifications for contracting out?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 259—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the government's $49 million investment in Mastercard's Intelligence and Cyber Centre in Vancouver and made through the Strategic Innovation Fund, since January 23, 2020: (a) to date, what is the actual number of jobs (i) created directly by this investment, (ii) maintained directly by this investment; (b) for the jobs in (a), where are they located and how many are (i) full-time, (ii) part-time, (iii) permanent, (iv) temporary; (c) what method was used to estimate that 380 jobs will be maintained and created through this $49 million investment; (d) how is the government ensuring that its $49 million investment meets the objectives of its National Cyber Security Strategy; (e) to date, what are the objectives of its National Cyber Security Strategy that this investment has achieved; (f) what are the conditions attached to this investment; (g) which of the conditions in (f) have not been met; and (h) until what date must the conditions in (f) be respected?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 260—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy and the claim by the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion that the government has “supported the creation of about 100,000 units” since 2017, broken down by stream and year: (a) how many units of housing has the federal government supported the creation of; and (b) how many of the units (i) have received funding, excluding funding commitments that have not been finalized, (ii) are part of funding commitments that have not been finalized, (iii) have not yet received federal funding, (iv) have completed construction, (v) have not yet started construction?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 264—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the monitoring studies of recreational fishing areas in British Columbia: (a) what studies have been done concerning the mark selective fishing (MSF) program currently in place requiring wild unmarked fish to be released unharmed; (b) what are the results of the studies on MSF program; (c) how is the system being enforced; (d) what steps is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertaking to implement a comprehensive MSF program for Chinook salmon; (e) what public consultations have been undertaken in this regard; and (f) what are the results of the public consultations?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
100 Wellington Street Building2-1-1 service8555-441-1 Housing investments8555-441-100 Financing provided by progr ...8555-441-101 Pipeline safety8555-441-103 Delegation at the United Na ...8555-441-104 Disaster Mitigation and Ada ...8555-441-105 Market Basket Measure8555-441-106 Rapid Housing Initiative8555-441-107 National Housing Co-Investm ...8555-441-108 National Housing Strategy ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 682--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to expenditures related to promoting, advertising, or consulting on Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by the government, including any that took place prior to the tabling of the legislation, since October 21, 2019, broken down by month and by department, agency or other government entity: (a) what was the total amount spent on (i) consultants, (ii) advertising, (iii) promotion; and (b) what are the details of all contracts related to promoting, advertising or consulting, including (i) the date the contact was signed, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the amount, (iv) the start and end date, (v) the description of goods or services, (vi) whether the contract was sole-sourced or was competitively bid on?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 684--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to fraud involving the Canada Emergency Response Benefit program since the program was launched: (a) what was the number of double payments made under the program; (b) what is the value of the payments in (a); (c) what is the value of double payments made in (b) that have been recouped by the government; (d) what is the number of payments made to applications that were suspected or deemed to be fraudulent; (e) what is the value of the payments in (d); and (f) what is the value recouped by the government related to payments in (e)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 685--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to Corporations Canada and the deregistration of federally incorporated businesses since 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many businesses have deregistered their corporation; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of business?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 686--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the government’s requirements for hotels being used as quarantine facilities: (a) what specific obligations do the hotels have with regard to security standards; (b) what specific measures has the government taken to ensure these security standards are being met; (c) how many instances have occurred where government inspectors have found that the security standards of these hotels were not being met; (d) of the instances in (c), how many times did the security failures jeopardize the safety of (i) the individuals staying in the facility, (ii) public health or the general public; (e) are hotels required to verify that someone has received a negative test prior to leaving the facility, and, if so, how is this specifically being done; and (f) how many individuals have left these facilities without receiving a negative test result?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 687--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the government’s requirements for hotels to become a government-authorized hotel for the purpose of quarantining returning international air travellers: (a) what specific obligations do the hotels have with regard to security standards; (b) what specific measures has the government taken to ensure these security standards are being met; (c) how many instances have occurred where government inspectors have found that the security standards of these hotels were not being met; (d) of the instances in (c), how many times did the security failures jeopardize the safety of (i) the individuals staying in the facility, (ii) public health or the general public; (e) how many criminal acts have been reported since the hotel quarantine requirement began at each of the properties designated as a government-authorized hotel; (f) what is the breakdown of (e) by type of offence; (g) are the hotels required to verify that someone has received a negative test prior to leaving the facility, and, if so, how is this specifically being done; (h) how many individuals have left these hotels prior to or without receiving a negative test result; and (i) how does the government track whether or not individuals have left these hotels prior to receiving a negative test result?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 688--
Ms. Nelly Shin:
With regard to the requirement that entails individuals entering Canada for compassionate reasons to seek an exemption online, the problems with the Public Health Agency of Canada’s (PHAC) online system, and the resulting actions from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA): (a) what is the total number of international travellers arriving at Canadian airports who were denied entry, broken down by month since March 18, 2020; (b) how many individuals in (a) were (i) immediately sent back to their country of origin, (ii) permitted to remain in Canada pending an appeal or deportation; (c) what is the number of instances where the PHAC did not make a decision on an application for exemptions on compassionate reasons prior to the traveller’s arrival, or scheduled arrival in Canada; (d) of the instances in (c), where PHAC did not make a decision on time, was the reason due to (i) technical glitches that caused the PHAC to miss the application, (ii) other reasons, broken down by reason; (e) for the instances where the PHAC did not make a decision on time, was the traveller (i) still permitted entry in Canada, (ii) denied entry; and (f) what specific recourse do travellers arriving for compassionate reasons have when they encounter problems with the CBSA or other officials due to the PHAC not making a decision on time?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 689--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
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 January 1, 2021: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) campaign description, (iv) date of the contract, (v) name or handle of the 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. 690--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to all monetary and non-monetary contracts, grants, agreements and arrangements entered into by the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, with FLIR Lorex Inc., FLIR Systems , Lorex Technology Inc, March Networks, or Rx Networks Inc., since January 1, 2016: what are the details of such contracts, grants, agreements, or arrangements, including for each (i) the company, (ii) the date, (iii) the amount or value, (iv) the start and end date, (v) the summary of terms, (vi) whether or not the item was made public through proactive disclosure, (vii) the specific details of goods or services provided to the government as a result of the contract, grant, agreement or arrangement, (viii) the related government program, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 691--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regard to the deal reached between the government and Pfizer Inc. for COVID-19 vaccine doses through 2024: (a) what COVID-19 modelling was used to develop the procurement agreement; and (b) what specific delivery timetables were agreed to?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 692--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regard to the testimony of the CEO of BioPharma Services at the House of Commons' Standing Committee on International Trade on Friday, April 23, 2021, pertaining to potential future waves of COVID-19 and the need for trading blocs: (a) have the Minister of Finance and her department been directed to plan supports for Canadians affected by subsequent waves of the virus through 2026; (b) what is the current status of negotiations or discussions the government has entered into with our allies about the creation of trading blocs for vaccines and personal protective equipment; (c) which specific countries have been involved in discussions about potential trading blocs; and (d) what are the details of all meetings where negotiations or discussions that have occurred about potential trading, including the (i) date, (ii) participants, (iii) countries represented by participants, (iv) meeting agenda and summary?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 694--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit payments being sent to prisoners in federal or provincial or territorial correctional facilities: (a) how many CERB benefit payments were made to incarcerated individuals; (b) what is the value of the payments made to incarcerated individuals; (c) what is the value of the payments in (b) which were later recouped by the government as of April 28, 2021; (d) how many payments were intercepted and or blocked by Correctional Service Canada staff; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by correctional institution; and (e) how many of the payments in (a) were sent to individuals in (i) federal correctional facilities, (ii) provincial or territorial correctional facilities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 696--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to the negotiations between the government and major Canadian airlines that are related to financial assistance, since November 8, 2020: what are the details of all meetings, including any virtual meetings, held between the government and major airlines, including, for each meeting, the (i) date, (ii) number of government representatives, broken down by department and agency, and, if ministers' offices were represented, how many representatives of each office were present, (iii) number of airline representatives, including a breakdown of which airlines were represented and how many representatives of each airline were present?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 697--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
With regard to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO): (a) broken down by end of fiscal year, between fiscal years 2011-12 to 2020-21, how many trademark examiners were (i) employed, (ii) contracted by the CIPO; (b) what percentage in (a) were employed with a residence within the National Capital Region of Ottawa-Gatineau, by the end of fiscal years 2015-16 to 2020-21; (c) broken down by fiscal year, during each fiscal year from 2011-12 to 2020-21, how many trademark examiners were (i) hired, (ii) terminated, broken down by (A) for cause and (B) not for cause; (d) is there a requirement for bilingualism for trademark examiners, and, if so, what level of other-official language fluency is required; (e) is there a requirement that trademark examiners reside within the National Capital Region of Ottawa-Gatineau, and, if so, how many trademark examiner candidates have refused offers of employment, and how many trademark examiners have ceased employment, due to such a requirement in the fiscal years from 2011-12 to 2020-21; (f) what was the (i) mean, (ii) median time of a trademark application, for each of the fiscal years between 2011-12 and 2020-21, between filing and a first office action (approval or examiner’s report); (g) for the answer in (f), since June 17, 2019, how many were filed under the (i) direct system, (ii) Madrid System; (h) for the answer in (g), what are the mean and median time, broken down by month for each system since June 17, 2019; (i) does the CIPO prioritize the examination of Madrid system trademark applications designating Canada over direct trademark applications, and, if so, what priority treatment is given; (j) as many applicants and trademark agents have not received correspondence from the CIPO by regular mail and prefer electronic correspondence, does the CIPO have systems in place to allow trademarks examiners and other trademarks staff to send all correspondence by e-mail to applicants and trademark agents of record, and, if not, is the CIPO looking into implementing such system; (k) when is the anticipated date for the execution of such system; (l) what is Canada’s ranking with other countries, as to the speed of trademark examination; and (m) what countries, if any, have a longer period of time between filing and a first office action (approval or examiner’s report) for trademarks compared to Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 699--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the Fiscal Stabilization Program under the Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act, since January 1, 1987: (a) what is the breakdown of every payment or refund made to provinces, broken down by (i) date, (ii) province, (iii) payment amount, (iv) revenue lost by the province, (v) payment as a proportion of revenue lost, (vi) the value of the payment in amount per capita; (b) how many claims have been submitted to the Minister of Finance by each province since its inception, broken down by province and date; (c) how many claims have been accepted, broken down by province and date; and (d) how many claims have been rejected, broken down by province and date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 700--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to voluntary compliance undertakings (VCU) and board orders by the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB), since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of money that has been made payable from pharmaceutical companies to her Majesty in right of Canada through voluntary compliance undertakings and board orders, both sum total, broken down by (i) company, (ii) product, (iii) summary of guideline application, (iv) amount charged, (v) date; (b) how is the money processed by the PMPRB; (c) how much of the intake from VCUs and board orders are counted as revenue for the PMPRB; (d) how much of the intake from VCUs and board orders are considered revenue for Health Canada; (e) as the Public Accounts lists capital inflow from VCUs as revenue, what has the PMPRB done with the inflow; and (f) who decides the distribution of the capital inflow from VCUs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 701--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB) and the proposed amendments to the “Patented Medicines Regulations”, also referred to as the PMPRB Guidelines, since January 1, 2017: (a) how many organizations, advocacy groups, and members of industry or stakeholders have been consulted, both sum total and broken down in an itemized list by (i) name, (ii) summary of their feedback, (iii) date; (b) how many stakeholders expressed positive feedback about the proposed guidelines; (c) how many stakeholders expressed negative feedback about the proposed guidelines; (d) what is the threshold of negative feedback needed to delay implementation of the proposed guidelines as has been done previously in mid 2020, and start of 2021; (e) have there been any requests made by PMPRB executives to Health Canada officials to delay the implementation of the proposed regulations; and (f) how many times were these requests rejected by Health Canada officials?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 702--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to reports, studies, assessments, consultations, evaluations and deliverables prepared for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 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. 704--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to government data relating to the Cannabis Act (2018) Part 14 Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes, broken down by month, year, and province or territory since 2018: (a) how many active personal or designated production registrations were authorized for amounts equal to or above 25 grams per person, per day: (b) how many active personal or designated production registrations are authorized for amounts equal to or above 100 grams per person, per day; (c) how many registrations for the production of cannabis at the same location exist in Canada that allow two, three and four registered persons; (d) of the locations that allow two, three and four registered persons to grow cannabis, how many site locations contain registrations authorized to produce amounts equal to or above 25 grams per person, per day; (e) how many site locations contain registrations authorized to produce amounts equal to or above 100 grams per person, per day; (f) how many Health Canada or other government inspections of these operations were completed each month; (g) how many of those inspections yielded violations, broken down by location; and (h) how many resulted in withdrawal of one or more licences?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 706--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to COVID-19 specimen collection from travellers completed at Canada’s ports of entry and through at home specimen collection kits: (a) what company performs the tests of specimens collected from each port of entry; (b) what company performs the tests of at home specimen collection kits; (c) what city and laboratory are specimens collected from each port of entry, sent to for processing; (d) what city and laboratory are at home specimen collection kits processed; (e) what procurement process did the government undertake in selecting companies to collect and process COVID-19 specimens; (f) what companies submitted bids to collect and process COVID-19 specimens; (g) what are the details of the bids submitted by companies in (f); and (h) what are the details of the contracts entered into between the government and any companies that have been hired to collect and process COVID-19 specimens?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 707--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests submitted to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) what is the current inventory of requests and broken down by the type of request; (b) what is the average processing time of each type of request; (c) what percentage of requests have received extensions in response time and broken down by the type of request; (d) what is the breakdown of the percentage of requests in (c) according to reasons for extensions; (e) what is the average length of extensions for response time overall and for each type of request; (f) what is the average number of extensions for response time overall and for each type of request; (g) what percentage of requests have had exemptions applied; (h) what is the breakdown of the percentage in (g) according to the reasons for exemptions; (i) how many complaints regarding the ATIP process has IRCC received since January 1, 2020, broken down by month; and (j) what is the breakdown of the number of complaints in (i) according to the type of complaint?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 708--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) offices: (a) what lines of business are processed at each case processing centre (CPC), the centralized intake office (CIO), and the Operations Support Centre (OSC); (b) what lines of business in (a) are not currently being processed at each CPC, the CIO, and the OSC; (c) how many applications have been (i) submitted, (ii) approved, (iii) refused, (iv) processed for each line of business, at each CPC, the CIO, and the OSC since January 1, 2020, broken down by month; (d) what is the current processing times and service standard processing times for each line of business at each CPC, the CIO, the OSC; (e) what is the operating status of each IRCC in-person office in Canada; (f) what services are provided at each IRCC in-person office in Canada; (g) what services in (f) are currently (i) available, (ii) unavailable, (iii) offered at limited capacity, at each IRCC in-person office in Canada; (h) what lines of business are processed at each IRCC visa office located in Canadian embassies, high commissions, and consulates; (i) how many applications have been (i) submitted, (ii) approved, (iii) refused, (iv) processed, for each line of business processed at each IRCC visa office in (h) since January 1, 2020, broken down by month; and (j) what is the current processing times and standard processing times for each line of business processed at each IRCC visa office in (h)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 709--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to correspondence received by the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Office of the Prime Minister related to internet censorship or increased regulation of posts on social media sites, since January 1, 2019: (a) how many pieces of correspondence were received; and (b) how many pieces of correspondence asked for more internet censorship or regulation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 710--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the planning of the government’s announcement on April 29, 2021, about the launch of an independent external comprehensive review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces and reports that some of those involved in the announcement, including Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan, did not learn about their new roles until the morning of the announcement: (a) on what date was Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan informed that she would become the Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture, and how was she informed; (b) on what date was Louise Arbour informed that she would be head of the review; (c) was the decision to launch this review made before or after Elder Marques testified at the Standing Committee on National Defence that Katie Telford had knowledge about the accusations against General Vance; and (d) if the decision in (c) was made prior to Mr. Marques’ testimony, what proof does the government have to back-up that claim?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 711--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to free rapid COVID-19 tests distributed by the government directly to companies for the screening of close-contact employees: (a) how many tests were distributed; (b) which companies received the tests; and (c) how many tests did each company in (b) receive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 712--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to contracts awarded by the government to former public servants since January 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to former public servants; (b) what is the total value of those contracts; and (c) what are the details of each such contract, including the (i) date the contract was signed, (ii) description of the goods or services, including the volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) start and end date of contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 713--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to sole-sourced contracts signed by the government since February 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many contracts have been sole-sourced; (b) what is the total value of those contracts; and (c) what are the details of each sole-sourced contract, including the (i) date, (ii) description of the goods or services, including the volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of the vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 714--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the RCMP’s National Security Criminal Investigations Program, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how many RCMP officers or other personnel were assigned to the program; and (b) what was the program’s budget or total expenditures?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 716--
Mr. Marc Dalton:
With regard to the Interim Protocol for the use of Southern B.C. commercial anchorages: (a) how many (i) days each of the anchorage locations was occupied from January 2019 to March 2021, broken down by month, (ii) complaints received related to vessels occupying these anchorages, between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2021; and (b) why did the public posting of interim reports cease at the end of 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 717--
Mr. Marc Dalton:
With regard to federal transfer payments to Indigenous communities in British Columbia: (a) what is the total amount of federal transfer payments in fiscal years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21; and (b) of the amounts provided in (a), what amounts were provided specifically to Metis communities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 718--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to funding provided by the government to the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS): (a) what requirements and stipulations apply for the CAEFS in securing, spending, and reporting financial support received from the government; and (b) what has the government communicated to the CAEFS with respect to the enforcement of Interim Policy Bulletin 584 before and after the coming into force of Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, on June 19, 2017?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 719--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to government funding in the riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, for each fiscal year since 2018-19 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 722--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to COVID-19 vaccines and having to throw them away due to spoilage or expiration: (a) how much spoilage and waste has been identified; (b) what is the spoilage and waste breakdowns by province; and (c) what is the cost to taxpayers for the loss of spoiled vaccines?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 724--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive (FTHBI) announced by the government in 2019, from September 1, 2019, to date: (a) how many applicants have applied for a mortgage through the FTHBI, broken down by province or territory and municipality; (b) of the applicants in (a), how many applicants have been approved and accepted mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province or territory and municipality; (c) of the applicants in (b), how many approved applicants have been issued the incentive in the form of a shared equity mortgage; (d) what is the total value of incentives (shared equity mortgages) under the program that have been issued, in dollars; (e) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is that value of each of the mortgage loans; (f) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is that mean value of the mortgage loan; (g) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers through the FTHBI to date; (h) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the percentage of loans originated with each lender comprising more than 5 per cent of total loans issued; (i) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the value of outstanding loans insured by each Canadian mortgage insurance company as a percentage of total loans in force; and (j) what date will the promised FTHBI program updates announced in the 2020 Fall Economic Statement be implemented?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
8555-432-682 Expenditures related to pro ...8555-432-684 Canada Emergency Response B ...8555-432-685 Corporations Canada and der ...8555-432-686 Quarantine hotels8555-432-687 Quarantine hotels8555-432-688 Applications for exemption ...8555-432-689 Expenditures on social medi ...8555-432-690 Government contracts and ag ...8555-432-691 Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine8555-432-692 Testimony of the Chief Exec ...8555-432-694 Canada Emergency Response B ... ...Show all topics
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-11 12:28
Expand

Question No. 641--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to signed or amended contracts for COVID-19 vaccines entered into by the government with Pfizer-BioNTech, AstraZeneca, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, Covavax, Medicago, Verity Pharmaceuticals Inc. & Serum Institute of India, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson: (a) broken down by manufacturer, what are the details of how each contract was negotiated and signed, including the (i) date signed, (ii) start and end date of the contract, (iii) name of the government’s lead negotiator, (iv) name of the government’s contracting officer, (iv) name of the departments and agencies that took part in the negotiations, (v) name of the specific divisions of each department or agency that took part in the negotiations, (vi) name of ministers or exempt staff that took part in the negotiations; and (b) how many contracts were signed with each manufacturer?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s vaccine planning began in April 2020, when the government created the COVID-19 task force. These experts were asked to provide advice based on a review of the emerging science and technology from the companies developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.
The task force began identifying the most promising vaccine candidates in June 2020. It advised that the best approach was to diversify supply as much as possible with different types of vaccine platforms, based on the solutions that looked most likely to work and could be delivered the fastest.
Based on the task force’s recommendations, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, decided which vaccines to buy. A vaccine procurement team, led by Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, was assembled to undertake the negotiations.
As with all government contracting processes, the work was carried out by government officials. The procurement team reported directly to the PSPC deputy minister, Bill Matthews. As with all major procurement projects, a multi-disciplinary approach was taken with different resources and expertise brought in as needed. The team included, among others, the contracting authority, subject matter experts, including scientists, legal advisers and auditors as well as the client.
Canada built its vaccine portfolio through advance purchase agreements, APA. APAs have the obligations of a contract, while being structured to allow flexibility given uncertainties around the development of new vaccines. The first two agreements, with Moderna and Pfizer, were announced in August 2020, followed by agreements over the next three months with Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Medicago. In February 2021, a contract with Verity Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc./Serum Institute of India was announced.
In most cases, initial agreements were signed through memorandums of understanding and term sheets to secure access to an early vaccine supply for Canada, while providing time for the regulatory process and to work through complex terms and conditions with the manufacturers. Given the unknowns regarding regulatory approvals, production capacity and supply chains, it was impossible to establish detailed delivery schedules at the time agreements were negotiated. Instead, the agreements include quarterly delivery targets that were determined based on anticipated supply.
As each company has different negotiation strategies and corporate policies, securing every agreement required a unique and complex approach. As a common element, all agreements required initial investments with the vaccine manufacturers to support vaccine development, testing, and at-risk manufacturing.
Within the framework of the contracts, Canada has sought ways to secure quicker deliveries of vaccines. In December 2020, PSPC secured early doses from both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, with vaccines arriving in Canada weeks earlier than originally forecast. The government also negotiated an accelerated delivery schedule with Pfizer-BioNTech to deliver millions more doses than originally scheduled between April and September 2021.

Question No. 642--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the government’s response to Order Paper question Q-402, which stated that a negotiating team was assembled in June 2020 with regard to the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines: (a) who were the original members of the negotiating team; (b) what is the current configuration of the negotiating team; and (c) what are the details of any changes made to the membership of the negotiating team, including the names and dates when each member was added or taken off of the negotiation team?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s vaccine planning began in April 2020, when the government created the COVID-19 vaccine task force. This team of experts was asked to provide advice based on a review of the emerging science and technology from the companies racing to develop vaccines to combat COVID-19.
Based on the task force’s recommendations, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, decided which vaccines to buy. A vaccine procurement team, led by Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, was assembled to negotiate with vaccine suppliers.
The team included, among others, the contracting authority, subject matter experts, legal advisers and the client. A multi-disciplinary approach was deployed, with different resources and expertise brought in as needed as the discussions evolved.

Question No. 646--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the use of cryptocurrency or digital currency as a means of payment and the revenue generated from the government's requirement to collect sales taxes on those purchases, broken down by year, since 2016: (a) how much Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) revenue did the government receive from goods or services purchased using a digital currency such as Bitcoin; (b) what is the government's estimate of the total value of purchases made by Canadians using a digital currency; and (c) what percentage of the value of purchases in (b) does the government estimate it received GST/HST payments from?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the goods and services tax, GST, and harmonized sales tax, HST, system does not track the amount of GST/HST collected by type of transaction, i.e., the GST/HST associated with the sale of any particular good or service, or whether that purchase was paid for with cash, credit card, debit card or other means of payment. Suppliers are generally required to remit to the Canada Revenue Agency the GST/HST collected on their total taxable sales for all types of transactions. As such, the government does not have information on the amount of GST/HST that would have been collected since 2016 on transactions using cryptocurrency or digital currency as a means of payment.
In response to (b), the GST/HST system does not track transactions. As noted in (a), suppliers are generally required to remit the GST/HST collected on their total taxable sales.
In response to (c), for the reasons noted in the responses to questions (a) and (b), the government does not have information available to respond to this question.

Question No. 650--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to contracts awarded to Indigenous businesses under the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Businesses, signed since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government agency: (a) how many have been awarded by the mandatory set aside; (b) how many have been awarded under the voluntary set aside; (c) what is the total value of each contract; (d) what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of services; (e) what is the percentage of total contracts; and (f) what is the value of the total contracts awarded by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government agency?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the data below includes the procurement strategy for aboriginal businesses, PSAB, contracts from Open Canada that have been validated against the vendors in the indigenous business directory by Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC. It also includes contracts under $10,000 that were provided to PSPC by departments and agencies. For the years 2017 and 2018, the response also includes contracts from PSPC financial systems data not included in Open Canada. Please note that the data is a snapshot and may not accurately reflect the actuals.
ISC and Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat have worked together to update reporting guidelines for departments, which now include providing this information. Implementation of these guidelines will take effect on January 1, 2022.
ISC has not received the data for 2019 and 2020 and therefore producing and validating a comprehensive response to these question for the years 2019 and 2020 is not possible in the time allotted, and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), PSAB contracts, mandatory and voluntary are as follows: 2016: $99,013,923; 2017: $128,613,588; and 2018: $170,634,262.
ISC does not have the data that includes the breakdown between mandatory and voluntary set aside, we currently only have data on total value for set-asides.
With regard to parts (c) and (d), all departments and agencies subject to the contracting policy are required to publish reports on contracts issued or amended by or on behalf of the Government of Canada. They can be found at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/ct/.
With regard to part (e), in 2018, the total value of government procurement was valued at approximately $16 billion, with the majority of this captured through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement spending. Our government will be implementing further changes in the near future to continue to update and modernize PSAB with the intent to increase procurement with indigenous businesses.
What follows is the total value to update and modernize PSAB with the intent to increase procurement with indigenous businesses and the total value of set-aside contracts versus total government procurement. For 2016, all contracts: $18,817,269,703, PSAB: $99,013,923, percentage of PSAB: 0.53%. For 2017, all contracts: $15,222,262,586, PSAB: $128,613,588, percentage of PSAB: 0.84%. For 2018, all contracts: $16,424,403,459, PSAB: $170,634,262, percentage of PSAB: 1.03%.
With regard to part (f), the value of the total contracts awarded by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government agency can be found at www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1618839672557/1618839696146.

Question No. 653--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to the decision announced by the government on the evening of April 22, 2021, to ban direct flights from India and Pakistan: (a) when did the government make the decision; (b) did the government inform the member from Surrey—Newton about the decision or pending decision prior to making the announcement public, and, if so, when was the member from Surrey—Newton informed; (c) did the government advise the member from Surrey—Newton to issue the tweet on April 21, 2021, encouraging Canadians travelling in India to consider coming home immediately; and (d) if the answer to (c) is negative, did the government provide any information to the member from Surrey—Newton, prior to April 22, 2021, which would indicate that a flight ban was likely forthcoming, and, if so, what are the details of the interaction?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), due to the high number of COVID-19 cases observed among air passengers arriving from India and Pakistan, Transport Canada, on the advice of the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, issued a NOTAM to suspend entry of flights, commercial and private passenger, from these countries, with the exception of cargo flights, effective April 22, 2021 for 30 days.
Canada has some of the strictest travel and border measures in the world. Canada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is guided by the latest science. Over the past few months, the Government of Canada introduced enhanced testing and quarantine requirements for travellers arriving in Canada. These requirements include mandatory submission of contact, travel and quarantine information via ArriveCAN, pre-departure, for air, or pre-arrival, for land, testing, on-arrival testing and testing again later during the 14-day mandatory quarantine period.
The PHAC monitors case data, and through mandatory testing upon entry into Canada, detected a disproportionally higher number of cases among individuals travelling on flights originating from India. Pakistan was consistently the second-highest contributor of cases. Given the high number of cases, the Government of Canada took additional measures: Transport Canada issued a notice to airmen, NOTAM, to suspend all commercial and private passenger flights from India and Pakistan for 30 days, effective 23:30 EDT April 22, 2021; the Minister of Transport amended the Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, which means that passengers who depart India or Pakistan to Canada after 23:30 EDT April 22, 2021, via an indirect route, need to obtain a negative COVID-19 pre-departure test from a third country before continuing their journey to Canada.
These measures help manage the elevated risk of imported cases of COVID-19 and variants of concern into Canada during a time of increasing pressure on Canada’s health care system.
In response to parts (b) to (d), Transport Canada has had no contact on this subject with the member of Parliament for Surrey-Newton. As part of the department’s usual process, we do not consult members of Parliament on safety or security decisions such as the issuance of a NOTAM.

Question No. 654--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Small Craft Harbours program, broken down by harbour authority: (a) how much has been invested in the harbour authorities of Yarmouth and Digby Counties; and (b) how much will be invested over the next five years in the harbour authorities mentioned in (a)?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans small craft harbours program, broken down by harbour authority, in response to (a) and (b), the program does not track harbours or harbours authorities by county.

Question No. 655--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the Mandatory Isolation Support for Temporary Foreign Workers (MISTFWP) program administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: (a) what is the rationale behind the eight month processing delay of the MISTFWP claim from Desert Hills Ranch in Ashcroft, British Columbia; (b) why is the Minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food actively withholding payment for the completed claim cited in (a); (c) why is the minister directing Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada staff to withhold payment, without providing any rationale to the applicant; and (d) on what date will Desert Hills Ranch be transferred the funds for their claim, completed July 2020, for 124 workers’ isolation support payments?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, is not in a position to share confidential third party information on specific files. However, a claim may be delayed for a variety of administrative reasons, including failure to comply with program parameters or incomplete claims documents. With respect to the mandatory isolation support for temporary foreign workers program, MISTFWP, in order to be eligible for funding, employers must comply with the mandatory 14-day isolation protocols, as well as any other public health order. They must also comply with all regulations of the temporary foreign worker program, TFWP, and/or the international mobility program for the duration of the mandatory 14-day isolation period. For example, employers must comply with regulations concerning wages and other employment conditions of the program or stream they used to hire their temporary foreign workers, such as the seasonal agricultural worker program and the TFWP.
Should AAFC become aware of an employer failing to meet these requirements, the recipient will no longer be eligible for the funding under the MISTFWP. Any amount already paid to the recipient will become repayable debts to the Crown.
In response to (b), as noted in our response to (a), the AAFC may not share confidential third party information. However, in general, a program payment is only withheld in the event that claimants are not compliant with their obligations under the contribution agreement or have failed to meet their related legal obligations. A claim will be suspended until such time as the department can confirm compliance with the federal and provincial partners involved in compliance and enforcement, such as Employment and Social Development Canada, Service Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Passport Canada, Public Health, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In response to (c), a payment may be withheld if there is a compliance issue. Any specific information related to this file is confidential. However, in the event of an issue, in order to resolve any concern and determine if an employer meets all program eligibility criteria, AAFC would work closely with other federal and provincial government departments and agencies responsible for the management, compliance, and enforcement of the regulations in place regarding temporary foreign workers in Canada, including Employment and Social Development Canada, Service Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Passport Canada, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Once complete, a payment will proceed if confirmation is received that the employer satisfies all eligibility criteria under the MISTFWP.
In response to (d), payments will be issued once compliance with all eligibility criteria has been confirmed.

Question No. 657--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to foreign aid provided to entities outside of North America since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided to entities outside of North America; (b) what is the total amount of funding provided to entities either based in or operating in Africa; (c) what are the details of all foreign aid funding provided to entities in Africa, including the (i) date of funding agreement, (ii) recipient, (iii) type of funding, (iv) location of recipient organization, (v) location where the funding was meant to benefit, (vi) purpose of funding or project description, (vii) amount of funding, (viii) agreement file number; (d) what is the total amount of funding provided to entities either based in or operating in Asia; (e) what are the details of all foreign aid funding provided to entities in Asia, including the (i) date of funding agreement, (ii) recipient, (iii) type of funding, (iv) location of recipient organization, (v) location where the funding was meant to benefit, (vi) purpose of funding or project description, (vii) amount of funding, (viii) agreement file number; (f) what is the total amount of funding provided to entities either based in or operating in Europe; and (g) what are the details of all foreign aid funding provided to entities in Europe, including the (i) date of funding agreement, (ii) recipient, (iii) type of funding, (iv) location of recipient organization, (v) location where the funding was meant to benefit, (vi) purpose of funding or project description, (vii) amount of funding, (viii) agreement 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.
Canada's presence abroad includes 178 missions, comprised of embassies, consulates, high commissions and trade offices, and a number of permanent missions to international organizations in 110 countries. Global Affairs Canada undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The information requested is not systematically tracked to the level of detail required to produce and validate a comprehensive response. A manual collection of information would be required and is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
Canada is committed to transparency and accountability and is among the world leaders in publishing open data on its international assistance. One of the many tools available through international assistance open data is the historical project data set, where the majority of the information requested can be found. The historical project data set publishes detailed information for each international assistance project for a given year in a database-friendly format. The information is detailed by country, sector, type of project, and partner organization. It also includes useful details about the specific characteristics of international assistance projects, such as tying status, partner type, policy objectives, and the modality used to deliver the international assistance.
International assistance open data is available at https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/open_data-donnees_ouvertes.aspx?lang=eng&_ga=2.250842310.1746972543. 1620232706-1440816363.1600970333.
The historical project data set is available at https://www.international.gc.ca/department-ministere/open_data-donnees_ouvertes/dev/historical_project-historiques_projets.aspx?lang=eng.

Question No. 658--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Development Finance Institute Canada (FinDev) and their funding of Kenyan company M-KOPA, since January 1, 2018: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided to M-KOPA, broken down by type of funding (equity investment, grant, repayable loan, etc.); (b) how many jobs were projected to be created from the funding; (c) how many jobs were actually created; (d) on what date were FinDev officials made aware of M-KOPA’s firing of 150 staff after the company received the subsidy; (e) was there a review conducted by the government to determine what went wrong with this funding, and, if so, what were the results of the review; (f) on what date did the Minister of International Development first approve the M-KOPA funding; and (g) on what date did the Minister of International Development become informed that the company had fired 150 staff?
Response
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), FinDev Canada has invested a total of $12 million U.S., in two stages: in February 2018, a total investment of $10 million U.S., and in January 2020, another $2 million U.S.
In response to (b), at the time of FinDev Canada’s investment, M-KOPA’s business plan projected to double its workforce by 2023 to 1,600, creating 800 new direct jobs, and increase its direct sales representatives from 1,600 to 2,500.
In response to (c), since FinDev Canada’s initial investment, over 200 new direct jobs have been created to date. At the end of 2020, M-KOPA had increased its direct sales representatives by an additional 1,600 agents.
In response to (d), FinDev Canada did not provide a subsidy to M-KOPA. As mentioned in the response to question (a), FinDev Canada’s investment was made in February 2018. M-KOPA’s decision to reduce overhead and associated operating losses, including the closure of operations in Tanzania and the reduction of staff at its headquarters, started in November 2017.
FinDev Canada’s investment helped M-KOPA expand its business. As stated above, over 200 new direct jobs have been created to date. M-KOPA also contracts a commission-based salesforce, which grew from 3,400 agents in 2018 to 5,000 agents at the end of 2020, which represents an additional 1,600 agents.
In response to (e), no review was conducted by the government.
To date, FinDev Canada’s investment in M-KOPA has been successful in creating jobs and market development, empowering women through quality jobs and access to products and services that enhance their well-being, and helping mitigate the effects of climate change by avoiding CO2 emissions through increased access to clean energy.
An environmental and social risk management review, including an assessment of compliance and policy programs, was conducted as part of the due diligence process. Further, M-KOPA provided written assurances in the transaction documentation, in the form of representations and warranties, to the effect that M-KOPA is compliant in all material respects with all laws relating to employment, including in relation to wages. M-KOPA has also recently confirmed that it is fully compliant with applicable labour law across its principal markets in Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria.
Further due diligence was conducted by FinDev Canada in 2019, which fed into the recommendation for the follow-on investment noted above in the response to question (a).
In addition, FinDev Canada participates as an observer at the M-KOPA board meetings and engages as needed with M-KOPA management to review performance on a regular basis.
In response to (f), FinDev Canada’s investment in M-KOPA was approved by FinDev Canada’s board of directors on February 1, 2018.
The Minister of International Development is not involved in FinDev Canada’s decision-making process.
In response to (g), there was no formal communication to inform the Minister of International Development. The timing of the staff reductions in M-KOPA occurred in advance of FinDev Canada’s investment. The media coverage in the spring of 2018 did come to the attention of FinDev Canada and was shared with the appropriate government stakeholders.

Question No. 659--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to providing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to individuals living on First Nations reserves in northern Manitoba: (a) how many doses did the government estimate were needed to cover all of the reserves in northern Manitoba; (b) how did the government come up with the estimate, including what specific data was used; and (c) how many doses have been sent to reserves in northern Manitoba as of April 26, 2021?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), as the administration of vaccination falls under the purview of each respective province or territory, the department does not have access to this information. However, Canada has a strong vaccine safety monitoring system that involves health care professionals, vaccine manufacturers, the provinces and territories, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, and Health Canada. Significant coordination and planning around the vaccine rollout between partners, and provinces, territories and the federal government has occurred and vaccine administration is well under way in communities. To assist with the rollout in indigenous communities, a COVID-19 vaccine planning working group was established by ISC. This working group supports linkages between provinces and territories, PHAC and first nations, Inuit and Métis partners, and provides a space for exchange of information and advice to those responsible for vaccine planning and administration.
With regard to part (c), as of April 26, there were an estimated 40,750 total doses shipped for first nations in northern Manitoba through the following health authorities: Four Arrows, Island Lake communities, 4,430 doses; Northern Regional Health Authority, 18,120 doses; Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Authority, 10,020 doses; Prairie Mountain Health Authority, 4,460 doses; and Southern Regional Health Authority, 3,720 doses.
An additional shipment of 6000 doses was scheduled for the following week.

Question No. 660--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to Canada's former ambassador to the United States, David MacNaughton: on what date did he meet with John F. Stratton?
Response
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in August 2019, David MacNaughton completed his term as Canada’s Ambassador to the United States to take up a new challenge in the private sector. During his tenure, the former ambassador did not meet with John F. Stratton.

Question No. 662--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates entitled “Modernizing Federal Procurement for Small and Medium Enterprises, Women-Owned and Indigenous Businesses” which was presented in the House on June 20, 2018: (a) what is the current status of the government’s implementation of each of the 40 recommendations contained in the report, broken down by individual recommendation; and (b) for each recommendation that has not yet been implemented, what is the timeline for implementation?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, is delivering on government commitments to modernize and simplify procurement.
A broad range of initiatives have been identified in the government’s response to the report presented on October 18, 2018. The government continues to work on implementing the recommendations made by the committee, and is pleased to further outline progress to date. The initiatives can be seen at www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/OGGO/report-15/response-8512-421-444.
PSPC remains committed to modernizing procurement practices so they are simpler and less administratively burdensome. By implementing measures such as the electronic procurement solution, PSPC is taking actions to remove barriers that have prevented small businesses from participating in federal procurement. This includes implementing a simplified contract model, improving and making existing procurement tools more accessible to diverse suppliers, and expanding support to bidders with limited or no success bidding on government opportunities, from coaching service to personalized assistance.
Further, PSPC’s office of small and medium enterprises, OSME, provides assistance and advisory services to increase the participation of smaller and diverse businesses in federal procurement. Examples include supporting the Rise Up Pitch Competition, a Black women entrepreneurs pitch competition and program for entrepreneurs across Canada to join and receive support for their businesses, and ongoing webinars provided in partnership with the United Nations Decade of Persons of African Descent Push Coalition. The OSME also works with indigenous businesses directly, as well as through partner indigenous organizations, to provide awareness, education and assistance on how to participate in federal procurement
In addition, budget 2021 provides $87.4 million over five years, starting in 2021-22, and $18.6 million ongoing to modernize federal procurement and create opportunities for specific communities by diversifying the federal supplier base. Specifically, Public Services and Procurement Canada would implement a program focused on procuring from Black-owned businesses; continue work to meet Canada’s target of at least 5% of federal contracts being awarded to businesses managed and led by indigenous peoples; improve data capture, analytics and reporting of procurement; incorporate accessibility considerations into federal procurement, ensuring goods and services are accessible by design; and leverage supplier diversity opportunities through domestic procurement, such as running competitions open to businesses run by Canadians from equity-deserving groups.
On May 3, 2021, PSPC committed to provide an update on its procurement modernization activities to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which is being prepared and will be provided to the committee shortly.
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)