Questions and responses All Sessions January 17, 1994, to present

With regard to data from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre and Criminal Firearms Strategic and Operational Support Services for years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, broken down by year: (a) what devices are included in data sets for firearms traces; (b) does data include replica guns, non-operative guns, airsoft, or pellet guns; (c) how is data in (b) indicated separately from working firearms legally imported to Canada or illegally imported into Canada; (d) how many firearms traces did the Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre complete, broken down by whether the firearm was used in a crime or for another reason; (e) of the firearms in (d), how many (i) were identified as legally imported into Canada, (ii) were identified on the restricted or prohibited registry, (iii) were reported as stolen or lost, (iv) were listed as prohibited based on the firearms reference table in May 2020, December 2024, or March 2025, (v) were of unknown origin, (vi) were reasonably suspected as being illegally imported, (vii) were reasonably suspected as being domestically manufactured and are considered an operable firearm that strikes a primer on a cartridge with a projectile, (viii) were suspected as being a replica, non-operable, airsoft, or pellet gun, (ix) had identifying markers or serial number removed, (x) were of unknown origin; (f) how many firearms traces were long guns; (g) how many firearms traces were handguns; (h) how many firearms traces were considered assault-style firearms as per government definition; (i) what is the government’s definition for assault-style firearms; (j) does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police collect data on gun crimes for assault-style firearms; (k) how many traces were conducted for assault-style firearms, broken down by (i) firearms reference number, (ii) make, (iii) model; (l) what crimes were suspected for traces, broken down by (i) type of crime (homicide, attempted homicide, accidental death, suicide, theft, trafficking, unsafe use, unauthorised possession, unsafe storage), (ii) type of firearm (handgun, long gun, assault style firearm), (iii) firearms legally possessed, illegally possessed, or stolen, (iv) firearm origin (imported, produced domestically legally, suspected as being trafficked into Canada or unknown), (v) those suspected of connection to gang crime; (m) for firearms traces suspected of a connection to gang crime, what are the details, broken down by (i) firearms type as per point (l), (ii) legally possessed, illegally possessed or stolen firearms, (iii) firearm origin (imported, produced domestically legally, suspected as being trafficked into Canada or unknown); (n) does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or Public Safety Canada receive data from the province of Ontario or Quebec on firearms tracing; and (o) if the answer to (n) is affirmative, what is the data provided by the provinces for points (a) to (l)?

With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-1053, and the claim that producing and validating a comprehensive response would require manual collection of information and cross-referencing of records that could not be completed within the allotted time: (a) did Public Safety Canada require participants to the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program to disclose their Possession and Acquisition License number, Registration Certificate Number, Firearm Identification Number or Firearms Reference Table number; (b) if the response to (a) is no, how does Public Safety Canada intend on facilitating the removal of restricted firearms from the restricted firearms registry when firearm owners’ property is collected for compensation; (c) if the response to (a) is no, what reason was this key value information not collected for the program; (d) if the response to (a) is yes, what limitation prevents the Possession and Acquisition License number from being used as a key value to provide the statistics requested in Order Paper question Q-1053; (e) what is the estimated timeline to align these datasets to publish the statistical data requested in Order Paper question Q-1053; (f) will the government publish this data when it becomes available, yes or no; (g) if the answer to (f) is no, how does the government intend to ensure an evidence-based firearms policy; (h) in reference to Public Safety Canada’s answer to point (a) of Order Paper question Q-1053, what statistics does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's firearms program retain to ensure Possession and Acquisition License holders are not a risk to public safety that is systemically tracked; (i) how many participants in the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program were identified as not posing a risk to public safety as defined and systemically tracked in the response to part (h); (j) how does Public Safety Canada intend to measure and publish statistics regarding the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program if the program is not cross-referencing with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's Firearms Program data; (k) how many firearms are listed on the Restricted Firearms registry; (l) of those identified in part (k), how many were identified through submissions to the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program; and (m) what additional specific data points will Public Safety Canada publish regarding the outcome of the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program and on what deadline?

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency misallocated payments by a taxpayer, since the 2021-22 fiscal year: (a) how many phone inquiries, Canada Revenue Agency account messages, letters or cases were tracked that were due to a misallocation of payments, broken down by fiscal year; (b) how many letters or correspondence were sent to taxpayers as a result of unresolved misallocated payments, broken down by fiscal year; (c) what was the estimated labour cost to the Canada Revenue Agency for resolving misallocated payments listed, broken down by fiscal year; (d) what process improvements did the Canada Revenue Agency undertake to further limit misallocated payments and ensure adherence to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and the right “to receive entitlements and to pay no more and no less than what is required by law”; (e) what reviews of misallocations did the Canada Revenue Agency undertake, and what corrective action was taken as a result; (f) has the Canada Revenue Agency further adjusted process changes from its response to the Taxpayer Ombudsman report “Getting It Right: Investigation of service and fairness issues arising from the misallocation of payments by the Canada Revenue Agency” and what changes have been made; (g) how many payment clerks did the Canada Revenue Agency employ, broken down by fiscal year; (h) how does the number of payment clerks in (g) compare to the number of payment clerks employed by Canada Revenue Agency in the 2019-20 fiscal year; (i) how many complaints has the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson received regarding misallocated payments, broken down by fiscal year; and (j) what is the estimated number of taxpayers who, as of the date of this question, have unallocated payments in unreconciled general accounts, and what is the total amount of these payments?

With regard to ongoing trade negotiations between Canada and Mercosur member countries and the potential impact on Canada’s beef sector: (a) what are the details of all consultations that the government has held since December 12, 2025, with Canadian beef producers, provincial cattle organizations, national agricultural organizations, industry associations, or other interested parties, in which concerns related to Mercosur beef imports, beef market access, or impacts on the Canadian beef sector were raised, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) who conducted the consultation, (iii) the names and titles of participants and organizations, (iv) which concerns were raised and by which organizations, (v) the government’s response to each concern; (b) what are the details of all consultations that the government has held since December 12, 2025, with Canadian beef producers, provincial cattle organizations, national agricultural organizations, industry associations, or other interested parties in which support was expressed for increased trade with Mercosur countries or for expanded beef market access under a Canada-Mercosur trade agreement, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) who conducted the consultation, (iii) the names and titles of participants and organizations, (iv) the reasons stated for support, broken down by each organization that expressed support; (c) what are the details of all written submissions or correspondence received by the government related to Mercosur negotiations, since December 12, 2025, including, for each, the (i) organization represented, (ii) date received, (iii) title, (iv) summary of the contents, including any concerns raised or supportive statements, (v) type of document; (d) what are the details, including methodology, dates, and findings of any projections, forecasts, economic models, impact assessments, or other analyses that the government has completed since December 12, 2025, regarding (i) the potential impact of Mercosur beef imports on Canadian cattle prices, farm revenues, herd expansion, domestic processing capacity, or Canadian market share, (ii) the expected benefits of a Canada-Mercosur trade agreement for Canadian farmers, ranchers, processors, or agricultural exporters; (e) what are the details of all assessments, analyses, briefing materials, scientific evaluations, or risk evaluations related to cattle diseases like Foot-and-mouth disease, animal health standards, biosecurity measures, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, or traceability systems in Mercosur countries which have been prepared since December 12, 2025, including, for each, the (i) title, (ii) completion date, (iii) country or countries examined, (iv) risk area examined, (v) findings or conclusions; (f) what analysis has the government completed since December 12, 2025, regarding compensation, transition supports, safeguard measures, or other mitigation measures for Canadian beef producers related to any potential increase in beef imports from Mercosur countries, including, for each, (i) the title, (ii) the completion date, (iii) the measure analyzed, (iv) who conducted the analysis, (v) the findings or conclusions; and (g) what are the details of any contracts signed related to any of the consultations or analyses conducted on this topic, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value, (iv) description of the goods or services provided?

With regard to the National Broadband Map which Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada uses to determine eligibility of federally funded support for Internet Service Provider projects to meet the federal government’s goal of providing high-speed internet (up to 50/10 Mbps) or broadband internet to all Canadians and broken down by fiscal year beginning in 2020-21: (a) how many discrepancies or errors of the National Broadband Map have been reported to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, broken down by (i) overreport of coverage, (ii) underreport of coverage; (b) what actions does Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada take to investigate such reports; (c) how many reports have been corrected or closed with no action taken, broken down by Internet Service Provider; (d) does Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada take any enforcement action when Internet Service Providers overreport service and this overreport results in the area not being considered for future federal funding; (e) what areas were identified as incorrectly receiving broadband coverage listed by street, town and province or territory; (f) how does a member of the public report to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada that the National Broadband Map is incorrect in their area; (g) how many communications has Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada received from the general public or Internet Service Providers regarding National Broadband Map errors, broken down by (i) date of communication, (ii) type (email, phone call, letter, through the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada account feedback tool), (iii) action taken, (iv) origin of the report (member of the public, Internet Service Provider, Parliamentarian's office); (h) how many errors on the National Broadband Map resulted in an area not receiving federal funding for a broadband project; and (i) what actions is the government taking to identify errors on the National Broadband Map and ensure all Canadians including those in areas considered the “last mile” receive reasonable internet options from Internet Service Providers?

With regard to Health Canada’s Consumer Product Safety Program since 2019-20 and broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many complaints, notifications or consumer product incident reports were received by Health Canada regarding manufactured non-compliant products in the Canadian market; (b) of the products in (a), how many were (i) manufactured in Canada, (ii) imported into Canada from elsewhere, broken down by country of primary manufacturer; (c) of the products in (a), what North American Industry Classification System subsector did these products fall under; (d) how many of the consumer product incident reports in (a) relate to ASTM F2057-23 – Standard Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units; (e) what was the average response timeline to the complainant that submitted a consumer product incident report, broken down by year; (f) how many consumer product incident reports have not received a response; (g) does the complainant receive confirmation that a full investigation was completed, and of the outcome of this investigation; (h) how many investigations are currently open, broken down by the year the consumer product incident report was submitted; (i) how many products have been removed from the Canadian market based on consumer product incident reports, broken down by the year the consumer product incident report was submitted; and (j) what administrative monetary penalties or enforcement actions have been issued through the Consumer Product Safety Program, broken down by (i) the year the complaint was received, (ii) the manufacturer or importer name, (iii) the amount of the fine, (iv) whether a compliance agreement was implemented, (v) whether the fine was paid or unpaid?

With regard to the government firearms confiscation compensation program (known as the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program): (a) how many registered participants had a criminal record; (b) out of the legal, trained, vetted and licenced firearms owners that participated, (i) how many possess a Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence, (ii) how many of the participants were on their initial Possession and Acquisition Licence or Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence, (iii) how many of the participants were on a renewed Possession and Acquisition Licence or Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence; (c) in cross-referencing the program’s information with the government’s database of all Canadian Armed Forces members, Royal Canadian Mounted Police members, veterans, and public servants, how many of the participants in this compensation program are (i) members of the Canadian Armed Forces, (ii) members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (iii) veterans, (iv) federal public employees (listed by department); and (d) how many participants were Indigenous based on their Possession and Acquisition Licence or Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence application being under the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations?

With regard to Weatheradio Canada and Hello Weather, operated by Environment and Climate Change Canada, and the federal decision to discontinue both services effective March 16, 2026: (a) what were the total federal costs to operate Weatheradio Canada for each of the last five fiscal years, broken down by operations, maintenance and capital expenditures; (b) what was the annual cost to operate the Hello Weather telephone service for each of the same five fiscal years; (c) what is the total approved federal budget to decommission Weatheradio Canada and Hello Weather, broken down by fiscal year; (d) what are the details of all contracts issued for decommissioning work, including, for each vendor, the (i) dollar amount, (ii) procurement method, (iii) description of the goods or services provided; (e) what are the projected annual savings the federal government expects following the discontinuation of these services; (f) what analyses, briefings or cost comparison documents did Environment and Climate Change Canada rely on to justify the discontinuation, and on what dates were these documents completed; (g) what federal expenditures have been allocated in each of the last five fiscal years to the WeatherCAN app, Canada.ca weather systems, and Alert Ready as alternatives to Weatheradio; (h) what were the annual system uptime and outage statistics for Weatheradio and for each alternative service; (i) which internal federal stakeholders, including, but not limited to, Environment and Climate Change Canada branches, Public Safety Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the Meteorological Service of Canada, were consulted prior to the decision to discontinue Weatheradio Canada and Hello Weather; (j) which external stakeholders were consulted, including emergency management agencies, provincial or territorial governments, municipalities, first responders, Indigenous communities, broadcasters and disability advocacy organizations; (k) on what dates did these consultations occur and what formats were used (meetings, written communications, technical briefings); (l) what concerns, recommendations or objections were raised by consulted stakeholders and how were they incorporated into the final decision; (m) which stakeholder groups requested that the services not be discontinued and what rationale did they provide; (n) were any stakeholders identified by Environment and Climate Change Canada or the Meteorological Service of Canada as relevant to the decision not consulted, and, if so, which stakeholders were not consulted and what was the reason they were not consulted; (o) were any members of Parliament or their offices consulted regarding the discontinuation, and, if so, what are the details of the consultations, including the (i) dates, (ii) formats, (iii) names of the members or offices consulted; and (p) for any information in (a) through (o) that is not tracked or not available, what are the details, including (i) the specific information that wasn't tracked, (ii) the reason it wasn't tracked, (iii) whether Environment and Climate Change Canada intends to begin tracking it, and, if so, in which fiscal year?

With regard to food waste, food diversion, and organic waste management in Canadian Armed Forces bases, wings, stations, and other Department of National Defence facilities, including all kitchen, galley, dining hall, and mess operations: (a) what amount of food waste was produced by Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces food service operations for each of the past five fiscal years, broken down by (i) base or wing, (ii) type of facility (kitchen, galley, mess, dining hall), (iii) category of food waste (pre-consumer, post-consumer, prepared-but-unserved, expired, etc.); (b) of the food waste identified in (a), what amount was diverted from landfill through (i) donation to community organizations, shelters, or food banks, (ii) repurposing for secondary use (animal feed, secondary processing), (iii) composting (on site or off site), (iv) recycling or anaerobic digestion programs, broken down by fiscal year since 2019-20; (c) what food donation programs or partnerships presently exist, either formally or informally, at any Canadian Armed Forces bases, wings, or stations, broken down by (i) names of partner organizations, (ii) volumes of food donated annually, (iii) the terms or memoranda of understanding governing such donations; (d) what composting or organic waste programs are currently in effect; (e) what recycling programs for food-related materials (such as oils, fats, grease, packaging, or organics) exist at Department of National Defence facilities, broken down by base; (f) what Department of National Defence or Canadian Armed Forces policies, directives, regulations, or risk management rules currently prevent or limit the diversion of edible food for the purposes of donation or repurposing, including food safety, liability, contractual limitations, Treasury Board or other government operational rules; (g) what actions are being taken by the Department of National Defence or Canadian Armed Forces to explore, pilot, or implement measures that would reduce food waste in military messes and kitchens, increase donation or diversion of edible food, and align military food service operations with federal waste reduction and sustainability targets; (h) what studies, internal reviews, consultations, or pilot projects related to food waste reduction or diversion have been undertaken since 2015, broken down by the (i) name of the initiative, (ii) purpose of each initiative, (iii) dates conducted, (iv) participating bases, (v) findings and recommendations; and (i) what funding has been allocated or spent since 2015 on activities, infrastructure, or programs related to food waste management or diversion within Department of National Defence or Canadian Armed Forces food service operations, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) base, (iii) type of expenditure (composting equipment, partnerships, audits, training)?

With regard to foreign-trained physicians seeking to practice in Canada and the immigration and credentialing processes affecting their ability to serve patients: (a) how many foreign-trained physicians are currently practicing in Canada on a work permit, broken down by (i) the number working as family physicians, (ii) the number working as specialists, (iii) province or territory of practice; (b) how many foreign-trained physicians have received an invitation to apply for permanent residency under the Express Entry system in each of the past five years; (c) of those in (b), how many (i) did not subsequently submit an application, (ii) had an application closed or deemed incomplete due to missing or delayed documentation, (iii) abandoned an application; (d) what were the primary documentation or administrative issues that led to the abandonment or closure of these cases; (e) how many foreign-trained physicians applied through the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program in each of the past five years; (f) how many had their application closed due to administrative or documentation issues related to navigating provincial or federal processes; (g) what studies have been conducted to explore pathways to reopen such applications; (h) what steps is the federal government taking to address Canada’s physician shortages to ensure that immigration, credentialing, and licensing processes do not prevent qualified physicians from practicing; (i) how many per capita foreign-trained physicians have been attracted to and are practicing in (i) Canada, (ii) Australia, (iii) New Zealand, (iv) the United Kingdom, (v) Ireland, broken down by year from 2018 to 2025; (j) what studies have Health Canada or other federal departments conducted to identify best practices that could improve national coordination with provinces and streamline federal and provincial processes; (k) what actions is the government taking to improve, expand, or fast track the recognition of foreign medical credentials, broken down by (i) pathways for physicians trained outside of Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, (ii) improved recognition of doctors currently practicing in Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States who were originally trained in a third country; (l) what consultations, intergovernmental working groups, or federal provincial initiatives have been undertaken since 2018 to modernize the physician credentialing and immigration system, broken down by (i) objectives, (ii) timelines, (iii) participating federal departments and provincial regulatory bodies, (iv) any recommendations or outcomes to date; (m) how many pieces of correspondence has the federal government received from 2018 to 2025 with recommendations to support changes to the foreign credentialing system, broken down by (i) type or medium of correspondence, (ii) department or agency in receipt, (iii) type of sender (private Canadian, lobby group, national organization, provincial government), (iv) year received, (v) action taken with correspondence; (n) what policy changes, legislative amendments, pilot programs, or administrative reforms are being considered or developed by the government to reduce barriers for foreign-trained doctors seeking permanent residency, improve coordination between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and credentialing bodies and ensure that Canada’s credentialing and immigration systems support physician recruitment; (o) for the years 2020 to 2025, what is the percentage of foreign-trained doctors that received permanent residency vs total permanent residency immigration to Canada; and (p) broken down for each of the years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, what is the estimated percentage of all qualified doctors per Canadian population?

With regard to paper T1 income tax packages mailed to Canadians: (a) how many packages were automatically mailed to Canadians for each of the tax years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 based on the fact that they filed their previous tax year on paper; (b) what was the cost for each of the tax years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 to automatically mail T1 income tax packages; (c) how many letters were sent to Canadians to inform them that they would not automatically receive a T1 income tax package for 2025; (d) what was the cost to send the letter to Canadians; (e) what is the total estimated cost to mail 2025 T1 income tax packages to Canadians; (f) what is the estimated savings realized for not automatically mailing T1 income tax packages; (g) what are the savings realized from removing Schedule 2, Schedule (S2), Schedule 3, Schedule 5, Schedule 6, Schedule 7, Schedule 9, Schedule 11, Schedule (S11), Schedule 12, Schedule (S12), Schedule 13, and Schedule 15 from the T1 income tax package; (h) for each of the tax years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, how many paper returns did the Canada Revenue Agency receive for each schedule in (g), listed by tax year and schedule; (i) what is the estimated cost to mail additional schedules for 2025 to Canadians; (j) from December 1, 2025, to January 26, 2026, how many orders for tax packages were received at (i) 1-855-330-3305, (ii) 1-800-959-8281; (k) how many and for what duration was the Canada Revenue Agency's telephone automated service inaccessible, listed by (i) occurrence date, (ii) duration of service disruption, (iii) estimated number of clients effected; and (l) what additional measures is the Canada Revenue Agency implementing to ensure Canadians with limited access to technology like seniors and religious minorities are treated fairly and with respect in submitting paper based returns?

With regard to the library book rate and the rate for the blind, also known as the Special Services and Handling provisions for materials for the print disabled, from the Canada Post Corporation Act and related regulations: (a) how many parcels were sent using these rates, listed by (i) year, (ii) library book rate or rate for the blind, from the 2018 operating year to present; (b) what is the estimated cost to Canada Post for these rates, listed by operating year since 2018; (c) how much funding does the government provide to support these programs, listed by operating year; (d) what analysis, studies, or consultation materials did the government rely on to decide to remove this provision in proposed amendments to the Canada Post Act, listed by (i) material name, (ii) originator of the material, (iii) date the material was created; (e) how many pieces of correspondence since November 1, 2025, has the government received regarding the removal of the library rate and rate for the blind, listed by (i) medium or type of correspondence, (ii) personal correspondence or from an organization, (iii) month received; (f) how many correspondence advocated for or recommended removing these rates from the Canada Post Act; (g) what positive outcome does Canada Post or the government receive from removing this provision from the legislation; (h) what new rates has Canada Post recommended to the government for implementation; (i) what correspondence, press releases or other communications has Canada Post or the government sent to stakeholders to commit to continuation of these programs, listed by (i) type of communication, (ii) date published, (iii) the location to access this information; (j) when does the commitment to maintain these programs expire; (k) does the government, a minister or Canada Post maintain the authority to end these programs; and (l) what other actions is the government taking to support persons with disabilities and ensure current federal legislation and policy in support of accessibility is respected?

With regard to federal acts of Parliament that include mandatory statutory review provisions, as of December 8, 2025: (a) how many acts currently in force contain mandatory review clauses, and, for each such act, what is (i) the relevant statutory provision (section and subsection), (ii) the trigger or timing for the review (for example, “within five years of coming into force”), (iii) the prescribed length or scope of the review (for example, “comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Act”), (iv) the designated reviewing body (for example, a committee of the Senate, the House of Commons, or both Houses, or a minister); (b) of the acts identified in (a), how many are now past their statutory review deadlines, and, for each overdue review, what is (i) the date the review became due, (ii) the status of the review (for example, initiated, completed but not tabled, not initiated), (iii) the reasons for delay and revised expected timelines; (c) with specific reference to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, S.C. 2017, c. 15, section 34, which requires “a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Act” five years after the day on which the act comes into force, (i) on what date did the statutory review become due, (ii) what steps have been taken to conduct and complete the review, including the dates of any milestones, (iii) when will the government table the review before Parliament, (iv) if a tabling date is not available, why and when can it reasonably be expected; and (d) for all responses to (a) to (c), what is the responsible department or agency?

With regard to Universal Broadband Fund projects in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and broken down by project: (a) what is the name of the funding recipient and the amount of federal funding allocated; (b) what is the target completion date of the project as stated in the contribution agreement; (c) what was the actual completion date, if completed; (d) what is the number of households, businesses or farms expected to benefit from the project; (e) what is the type of internet service (fibre, wireless, satellite) being delivered; (f) what is the specific geographic area which the project is funded to cover, based on road and address; (g) what performance audits, service delivery checks or compliance reviews are conducted to ensure that the funded service is delivered as promised; (h) what were the results of the reviews in (g); and (i) is the project completion date projected to change significantly, and, if so, what is the new projected completion date?

With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada's decision to significantly restrict access to extracorporeal shockwave therapy for Canadian veterans, effective December 1, 2025: (a) what evidence and medical research did Veterans Affairs Canada rely on to justify limiting extracorporeal shockwave therapy coverage to three sessions per lifetime for chronic tendinopathies and eliminating coverage for erectile dysfunction; (b) did a panel of physicians recommend limiting extracorporeal shockwave therapy access; (c) if so, in (b), which physicians participated in the panel, what literature was reviewed by the panel, what literature on extracorporeal shockwave therapy was decided to be excluded from the panel, and where is the panel’s determination available for public review; (d) how many veterans have received extracorporeal shockwave therapy since its inclusion in the Program of Choice 06 in 2017, and how many are currently undergoing treatment; (e) what consultations, if any, were conducted with veterans, medical professionals, or service providers prior to the July 2025 decision to restrict extracorporeal shockwave therapy coverage, listed by medium and date; (f) what feedback was received from the consultation; (g) has the department assessed the potential physical and mental health impacts of these changes, particularly for veterans managing chronic pain, mobility issues, or conditions such as erectile dysfunction, and, if so, what were the results of the assessment; (h) what alternative therapies or supports, if any, are being offered to veterans who will lose access to extracorporeal shockwave therapy under the new policy; (i) will Veterans Affairs Canada consider grandfathering existing extracorporeal shockwave therapy treatment plans or providing transitional support for veterans currently receiving the therapy; (j) was extracorporeal shockwave therapy limited due to costs associated with the treatment or a decision that extracorporeal shockwave therapy does not have positive outcomes for veterans; and (k) what process can veterans take to trigger a Veterans Affairs Canada review of this decision while providing the evidence of the positive outcomes this treatment provides?

With regard to exports of military equipment regulated by the Export and Import Permits Act: (a) has the government been able to confirm the presence of Cadex Defence rifles in use by the Russian military; (b) what enforcement actions has the government taken since July 19, 2023, to enforce the full ban on the export, sale, and transportation of weapons to Russia, listed by occurrence and outcome; (c) what investigations have taken place into the role of third-party intermediaries in facilitating the transfer of Canadian rifles to Russia; (d) what communication has Global Affairs Canada had with Cadex Defence regarding the diversion of its products to sanctioned countries, listed by date and medium of communication; (e) what amendments to regulations will the government make to prevent further exports to Russia; (f) when will these regulations be implemented; (g) what are the highest penalties for violating export controls under the act; and (h) what additional resources is the government committing to prevent and investigate occurrences of illegal arms export, listed by committed funding for new systems or employees?

With regard to the conditions set in place after R. v. Jordan (2016) or the “Jordan Decision”: (a) is there a plan to address the sharp rise in cases exceeding the Jordan Limit since 2019‑20; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what is the government’s plan to address the sharp rise in cases exceeding the Jordan Limit since 2019-20; (c) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what is the government’s target percentage of total cases exceeding the Jordan Limit; (d) is there a specific plan to prioritize cases resulting in (i) bodily harm, (ii) death, (iii) drug trafficking, (iv) drug production, (v) drug importation, (vi) drug exportation, (vii) domestic violence, (viii) sexual assault, and to prevent them from exceeding the Jordan Limit; and (e) how many plea bargains have been reached since the Jordan Limit was implemented, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province or territory, (iii) type of offence as listed in (d)(i) to (d)(viii)?

With regard to the government’s "Canada Strong Pass" for national parks and monuments: (a) did the government consult with communities surrounding the national parks and monuments ahead of announcing this initiative; (b) if yes to (a), when did these consultations take place, who was consulted and what are the details, including (i) the date, (ii) who was consulted, (iii) the name of the park or monument; (c) what is the projected loss of government revenue from implementing this pass; (d) how much does each park or monument collect in admission fees, broken down by (i) province, (ii) the name of the park or monument, (iii) the average yearly visitors from 2015 to present, (iv) the annual park or monument revenue; (e) has the government forecasted the estimated influx of visitors and ensured adequate staffing for the parks; and (f) how has the government prepared each park for the potential influx of visitors through the implementation of this pass?

With regard to the December 5, 2024, and March 7, 2025, announcements that the government would extend the list of prohibited "assault-style" firearms to include 503 new makes and models: (a) how many of these new models have been used in crimes in Canada since 2015, broken down by (i) model, (ii) make, (iii) crime committed, (iv) whether the crime was committed with a legally-owned or illegally-owned firearm, (v) the date the crime was committed; (b) did the government consult with Indigenous people on this program expansion; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, who was consulted, how were they consulted and what were the results; and (d) how is the government notifying impacted law-abiding, non-restricted and restricted firearms owners, who do not have email, internet or phone services, of these changes in a timely fashion?

With regard to the government’s decision to implement changes regarding the regulation of Natural Health Products through regulation enabled by Bill C-47 (Budget Implementation Act, 2023, 44th Parliament) through sections 500-504: (a) how many individual pieces of correspondence has the Minister of Health received in support of these regulations to date, broken down by (i) date, (ii) medium (i.e. online, phone, email, mail), (iii) federal riding; (b) how many individual pieces of correspondence has the Minister of Health received to date in opposition to these regulations, broken down by (i) date, (ii) medium (i.e. online, phone, email, mail), (iii) federal riding; and (c) how many individual pieces of correspondence has the Minister of Health received to date in totality, regardless of whether support or opposition to the regulations was conclusive or not, broken down by (i) date, (ii) medium (i.e. online, phone, email, mail), (iii) federal riding?