No. 219
:
Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1525 to 1528, 1531, 1533, 1534, 1536, 1543, 1548 to 1550, 1562, 1565, 1568, 1570 to 1572, 1575, 1576, 1580, 1581, 1583, 1587, 1588, 1597, 1602, 1603, 1605, 1607, 1612, 1614, 1617 to 1619, 1623 to 1625, 1630, 1634, 1638, 1640, 1646, 1653, 1659 to 1661, 1664, 1669 to 1671, 1677, 1680, 1686 and 1691.
[Text]
Question No. 1525—Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to national sport organizations (NSOs) with contribution agreements with Sport Canada (SC), and that have or had non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with employees and coaches: (a) is SC monitoring which NSOs have NDAs with employees and coaches; (b) for each NSO, what are the details of each NDA, broken down by the year or years in place; and (c) for each NSO in (a), has the agreement ever been used, and, if so, when, and for what purpose?
Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), at this time, Sport Canada is not monitoring which national sport organizations have non-disclosure agreements with employees and coaches. However, in her May 11, 2023, announcement to foster a safe and sustainable culture change in sport, the previous minister for sport reiterated that non-disclosure agreements or non-disparaging clauses should never be used to prevent athletes and other sport participants from disclosing maltreatment they have experience or witnessed. Consistent with national efforts to this end, Sport Canada will include a clause in its funding agreements with national sport organizations that will prohibit any national sport organization contracts, policies, procedures or actions that restrict participants’ rights under the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.
With regard to part (b), at this time, Sport Canada does not monitor non-disclosure agreements and therefore is not able to confirm which national sport organizations might have them and what the details might be.
With regard to part (c), as per the answer to part (b) above, these details are not available.
Question No. 1526—Mr. Kevin Vuong:
With regard to the proposed redesign of the Canadian passport: (a) which minister and government department initiated the passport redesign project; (b) what public consultations were held on the new illustrations to be contained on the redesigned passport pages; (c) who determined, and on what basis, the replacement of the former pages of the passport; and (d) how much did the redesigned passport project cost?
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the proposed redesign of the Canadian passport, the development of the new passport began in 2013 following the launch of the last passport design. The new theme was approved by the Minister of IRCC on July 4, 2019, and the final images were approved by the minister on November 16, 2020.
The theme of the passport was first identified more than 10 years ago from surveys of passport applicants conducted by the passport program. Subsequent consultations, including with the Government of Canada’s forensic specialists at the Canada Border Services Agency and with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Heritage and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, were conducted to provide additional insight and inclusivity.
Industry standard and best practice is to refresh security features and passport booklet design every five years. This aligns with the recommendations set forth by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Changing the theme and the design of our passport is an important step in preventing counterfeiting by integrating new and more advanced security features and design techniques. The change also ensures that there is a clear distinction of imagery between each passport in the old and new series, which ensures ease of validation of the travel document and security features by border services agencies globally.
The passport redesign is a milestone from the ePassport Next Generation project. An expenditure authority in the amount of $161 million has been provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat to design, develop and deploy Canada’s ePassport Next Generation suite of travel documents and all related printing equipment, software and infrastructure by October 2024. This initiative is fully funded from the passport program revolving fund. Costs specific to the redesign cannot be provided, as the vendor costs for this milestone were combined with other project implementation deliverables.
Question No. 1527—Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the passport design unveiled on May 10, 2023: (a) what are the details of all spending related to the redesign of the new passport, broken down by item and type of expense; (b) who were the artists and companies that were used for the design and images in the new passport, and how much was each paid for their work; (c) what are the details of the consultations related to the redesign, including, for each consultation, the (i) names of organizations or individuals consulted, (ii) date, (iii) form (roundtable, online questionnaire, etc.), (iv) outcome, recommendation, or feedback provided; (d) during consultations, did anyone support removing Terry Fox from the passport design, and, if so, who; (e) during consultations, did anyone voice support for removing Nellie McClung from the passport design and, if so, who; (f) during consultations, did anyone voice support for removing the Vimy Ridge Memorial from the passport design, and, if so, who; (g) during consultations, did anyone voice support for removing Quebec City from the passport design, and, if so, who; (h) what is the total cost of all consultations which have occurred to date; (i) what is the breakdown of consultation costs by date and line item; (j) have any outside consultants or service providers been involved in the development of the new passport’s design, and, if so, what are the details of each consultant or service provider's involvement, including the (i) name of the individual or firm, (ii) contract value, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) description of the goods or services provided; (k) how many government employees or full-time equivalents worked on the redesign and consultations; and (l) what are the (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, costs associated with the redesign and consultations incurred to date, in total, and broken down by year and type of expense?
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the newly unveiled Canadian passport was delivered as part of a comprehensive project led by IRCC to replace the passport booklet and all related production printing equipment and infrastructure to produce this new passport. The Treasury Board of Canada has approved a project budget of $161 million for this project, which began in 2016, and it includes costs payable to the Canadian Bank Note Company, CBN, for various project deliverables.
With regard to part (b), as part of the project, Canada launched a competitive procurement process in June 2016, and on May 24, 2019, a contract was awarded to the CBN to deliver this solution for the Government of Canada. CBN was responsible, per the contract, for the development of the designs for the new passport following the decision on theme by the Minister of IRCC. The contract was awarded for $284 million, as posted at https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/request-your-own-supplier-contract-history-letter/canadian-bank-note-company-limited?order=award_date&sort=desc#award_date, for printed matter, including books, newspapers, pictures, manuscripts and forms.
With regard to part (c), the new passport design has undergone consultations, including with the Government of Canada’s forensic specialists at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, and with Canadian Heritage and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. The theme was selected following a series of annual surveys conducted by the passport program. These were conducted by phone with a statistically relevant sample size for that year of Canadian passport holders.
With regard to parts (d), (e), (f) and (g), consultations with forensic specialists were focused on the security features of the new passport. The surveys were conducted on broad themes for the design of the new passport, and not on the inclusion of images or representations of specific individuals or events.
With regard to parts (h) and (i), at this point in time and due to time constraints, the cost specific to this question is not known, as this was included as part of a broader survey conducted on passport operations with Canadian passport holders on an annual basis.
With regard to part (j), yes, CBN is under contract with the Government of Canada to redesign the Canadian passport as part of the full ePassport Next Generation solution and infrastructure procurement. The contract was awarded for $284 million, as posted at https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/request-your-own-supplier-contract-history-letter/canadian-bank-note-company-limited?order=award_date&sort=desc#award_date, for printed matter, including books, newspapers, pictures, manuscripts and forms.
With regard to part (k), approximately 2.5 IRCC full-time equivalents, FTEs, worked on the passport redesign as part of the ePassport Next Generation project.
With regard to part (l), there were no travel or hospitality costs incurred to redesign the Canadian passport.
Question No. 1528—Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the government's treatment of Egyptian refugees: (a) does the Minister of Public Safety consider (i) Canadian citizens, (ii) permanent residents, (iii) foreign nationals, who joined or participated in Egypt's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) after the 2011 Egyptian revolution, to participate in Egypt's democratic elections to be a danger to the security of Canada; (b) why has the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) deemed FJP-affiliated refugees inadmissible to Canada; (c) will the Minister of Public Safety grant ministerial relief to those Egyptian refugees who have been deemed to be inadmissible to Canada because they joined or participated in the FJP after the 2011 Egyptian revolution to participate in Egypt's democratic elections; and (d) will the Minister of Public Safety issue a directive to resolve the CBSA's inconsistent treatment of Egyptian refugees with FJP affiliation to ensure that all refugees are treated equally, impartially, and consistently?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, officials are legally required to apply legislation, including the membership provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, passed by Parliament. They do so in an equal, impartial and consistent manner, in line with the law and the guidance of the courts, as well as based on comprehensive national guidance and management oversight to ensure objectivity. The CBSA’s role is to gather evidence and to present allegations, but for serious inadmissibility allegations that require an admissibility hearing, they are not the decision-maker; the Immigration Refugee Board is the decision-maker, based on an assessment of the evidence presented by the CBSA and by those who are alleged to be inadmissible.
With regard to (i) to (iii) of part (a), Canadian citizens are not subject to inadmissibility provisions under IRPA. Only permanent residents and foreign nationals can potentially be inadmissible to Canada. All cases, including persons affiliated with the Freedom and Justice Party, are assessed and reviewed on a case-by-case basis for inadmissibility concerns, and only those for which there is a sound evidentiary basis may end up being reported as inadmissible. The CBSA role is to conduct admissibility investigations, gather evidence and, if well founded, present the allegation.
No such case has led to concerns related to the specific inadmissibility provision for danger to the security of Canada. Instead, they relate to inadmissibility for being a member of an organization for which there are concerns that it engaged in impugned acts, which is in paragraph 34(1)(f) of IRPA. Of note, when determining inadmissibility relating to membership in any such organization, IRPA does not require that an individual be found to pose a threat or danger to Canada.
With regard to part (b), like most of the serious inadmissibilities, the membership inadmissibility allegation requires the decision of an impartial, quasi-judicial tribunal, in this case the immigration division, ID, of the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB. This means that the IRB is the final decision-maker where these matters are at issue and that the CBSA cannot deem any person inadmissible in these circumstances unilaterally.
If an officer determines that there is robust evidence to support an allegation of inadmissibility, they may report the person as inadmissible. Subsequently, a different officer must then review that report to determine whether the report is well founded. If that officer so concludes, the report can then be referred to the ID of the IRB for adjudication at an admissibility hearing.
Finally, in any case where a person is found inadmissible, that person can pursue a judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada, which did occur in one of these case. The court upheld the finding of inadmissibility at that time, thereby dismissing the judicial review.
With regard to part (c), if a person is found to be inadmissible for certain provisions, including membership inadmissibility as in these cases, they may make an application for ministerial relief to the Minister of Public Safety. In order to be eligible to submit an application for relief, an individual must have a final determination of inadmissibility, such as a removal order issued by the IRB or an application for temporary or permanent residence refused by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and must satisfy other requirements as set out in the immigration and refugee protection regulations. The Minister of Public Safety assesses the merits of eligible applications to determine whether or not a grant of relief would be contrary to Canada’s national interest. If the minister decides to grant relief, it would mean that the person would not be considered inadmissible thereafter on the basis of the grounds for which relief was provided. Each ministerial relief application is assessed on its own case-specific facts and circumstances. As such, it is not possible to predetermine the outcome of any pending or anticipated requests for relief.
With regard to part (d), the CBSA treats any case before it on a case-by-case basis, in a dispassionate and impartial manner, and based on the facts before it at that time. The agency prioritizes serious inadmissibility matters from an investigative perspective and provides its officers an array of functional, operational and program guidance to support and assist them in the execution of their mandate and duties. All guidance is updated to reflect the evolving jurisprudential environment. Any possible enforcement action taken must comply with the law and existing operational and program policies, and is subject to rigorous and independent review at multiple steps, including by CBSA officers and the IRB, which is the independent adjudicating tribunal, with the availability of judicial review by the Federal Court of Canada against any decision taken.
Question No. 1531—Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to the new passport design unveiled on May 10, 2023: (a) what is the detailed timeline of all actions (calls for proposals, designs reviewed, ministerial approval, etc.) associated with the development of the new passport from when the government first considered changing the passport; and (b) for each action in (a), who was responsible for overseeing that particular part of the process?
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), please find the timeline concerning actions associated with the new B series passport design below.
In January 2013, the current passport, the A series, was launched. Research and development efforts began, to document specifications for future passport contracts based on lessons learned from the 2011 contract. The office of primary interest, OPI, was Passport Canada’s security bureau.
There are survey results from 2016, 2017 and 2018. Passport program surveys are conducted to collect data from recent applicant passports holders on a range of questions, including possible themes for the design of the next passport. The OPI was Passport Canada’s security bureau and program integrity branch.
In June 2016, the request for information was posted on buyandsell.gc.ca. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
On June 13, 2017, the invitation to qualify was posted on buyandsell.gc.ca to select pre-qualified bidders. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
On April 27, 2018, the request for proposals was posted to pre-qualified bidders. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
Other government departments, OGD, were consulted in 2019 and 2020. Consultations were conducted with forensic experts at the CBSA and the RCMP, and with Canadian Heritage and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, CIRNAC.
On May 24, 2019, the contract was awarded to the Canadian Bank Note Company Ltd. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
On July 4, 2019, the Minister of IRCC approved the theme of the design. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
On May 20, 2020, the Minister of IRCC approved a preliminary version of the design and provided suggestions for adjustments. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
On November 16, 2020, the Minister of IRCC approved the final design of the passport. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
Following ministerial approval of the aesthetic design, content was converted into detailed security features, and the design went through several manufacturing and testing steps involving multiple international suppliers. The pandemic, health restrictions, staff illnesses and supply chain issues had repercussions on the project as a whole, adding two years to the original one year that should have been required to complete this work.
Question No. 1533—Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to the government's decision to remove the images of the Vimy Ridge Memorial and Billy Bishop from the Canadian passport: (a) were any veterans groups or The Vimy Foundation consulted about the removal of the images prior to the unveiling, and, if so, which ones, and what feedback did they provide; and (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, why was the decision made not to consult veterans groups and who made the decision?
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the passport program conducted annual client satisfaction surveys with Canadians beginning in 2011. This included possible themes for the new Canadian passport. A new design is required in order to maintain the integrity of the new passport and to align with international security best practices of a five-year passport redesign cycle. Based on the survey results, a new passport theme, “The four seasons in Canada”, was proposed and subsequently approved by the Minister of IRCC.
With regard to part (b), consultations on the new theme and images occurred, including with the Government of Canada’s forensic specialists at the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and with Canadian Heritage and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. Due to the secrecy of the passport design and security features, there were limitations to the number of groups that could have access to the design.
Question No. 1534—Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to costs associated with the new passport design unveiled on May 10, 2023, as well as the accompanying news conference: (a) what were the total costs associated with the new passport, broken down by type of expense; and (b) what are the details of all contracts signed by the government related to the new passport, and the unveiling and promotion of the new design, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the goods or services, (v) details of whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process?
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the passport redesign is a milestone from the ePassport Next Generation project. An expenditure authority in the amount of $161 million has been provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat to design, develop and deploy Canada’s ePassport Next Generation suite of travel documents and all related printing equipment, software and infrastructure by October 2024. This initiative is fully funded from the passport program revolving fund.
With regard to part (b), as part of the project, Canada launched a competitive procurement process in June 2016, and on May 24, 2019, a contract was awarded to the Canadian Bank Note Company, CBN, to deliver this solution for the Government of Canada. CBN was responsible, per the contract, for the development of the designs for the new passport. The contract awarded was for $284 million, as posted at https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/request-your-own-supplier-contract-history-letter/canadian-bank-note-company-limited?order=award_date&sort=desc#award_date, for printed matter, including books, newspapers, pictures, manuscripts and forms.
Question No. 1536—Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to judicial vacancies: what is the number of vacancies, as of May 16, 2023, broken down by province or territory and level (Federal Court, Superior Court of Justice, etc.)?
Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada updates the data pertaining to judicial vacancies shortly after the beginning of each month. It can be found at the following link: https://www.fja.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/judges-juges-eng.aspx.
Question No. 1543—Mrs. Dominique Vien:
With regard to the $25 million announced in budget 2022 for the Menstrual Equity Fund: (a) how much of the $25 million has been spent to date; (b) what is the breakdown of spending by province and territory; (c) what is the breakdown of spending to date, by line item and type of expenditure; and (d) what are the details for all funding recipients to date, including, for each the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) location?
Hon. Marci Ien (Minister for Women and Gender Equality, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the menstrual equity fund, MEF, is a pilot project intended to provide menstrual products to those most in need by addressing barriers related to affordability and stigma that some Canadians face when accessing menstrual products. Through extensive consultation in 2022-23 with grassroots organizations, and bilateral and group discussions with the indigenous women’s circle, not-for profit organizations, the private sector and provinces and territories, the Department for Women and Gender Equality, WAGE, discovered the complexity of the menstrual equity landscape across Canada. The pilot project is a first step to address challenges many menstruators face as they go about their daily lives. The pilot project will serve as a precursor in laying groundwork for future national solutions to menstrual equity in Canada, using key research results and data as made available through the first menstrual equity fund.
With regard to part (a), none of the funding for the national pilot for a menstrual equity fund committed in budget 2022 has been spent to date. The Department for Women and Gender Equality dedicated time in the 2022-23 fiscal year to undertake research, engagement and analysis to inform the design of the pilot, which centres on selecting one national not-for-profit organization to distribute menstrual products to grassroots organizations in select yet-to-be determined pilot sites, and to partner with several grassroots organizations already advancing menstrual equity to scale up their education and awareness activities. A targeted call for proposals was launched on May 29, and will close on June 23, to solicit applications from national organizations. Funding will only be allocated to the successful national organization once the final agreement is in place.
With regard to part (b), through the MEF pilot project, WAGE will test a pan-Canadian approach to menstrual product distribution and increase education and awareness on menstruation. One national organization will be selected to implement the pilot across Canada, in diverse geographical contexts with high concentrations of low-income populations disproportionately impacted by period poverty, including high-density urban areas; rural, northern and remote locations; and indigenous and two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex plus, 2SLGBTQI+, communities. While it is expected that the pilot will have locations in most of the provinces and territories, the estimated breakdown of spending by province and territories will not be known until the agreement with the selected national organization is finalized.
With regard to part (c), no funds have been spent to date.
With regard to part (d), the funding has not yet been allocated.
Question No. 1548—Mr. Sébastien Lemire:
With regard to the national sport organizations (NSOs) that have signed an agreement with the Office of the Sports Integrity Commissioner and have a contribution to pay for signing on to the “Abuse-Free Sport” program: (a) how many participants are covered; (b) what is the detailed description of those participants; (c) how much did each NSO pay out in 2021-22, in 2022-23 and for the current year 2023-24; (d) how was this calculation (formula) arrived at, and what is the value of each of the parameters of the formula that applies to each NSO; and (e) how many complaints have been received for each quarter in English and French?
Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested is not available in Canadian Heritage databases or tracking systems. The data is the property of the office of the sport integrity commissioner. The questions should therefore be referred to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada’s Abuse-Free Sport program.
Question No. 1549—Mr. Sébastien Lemire:
With regard to each of the complaints received by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner: (a) on what date was the complaint filed; (b) which sport organization was the complaint filed; (c) how long did it take the Office of the Commissioner to render a decision; (d) what is the status of the complaint; (e) what is the name and title of the person responsible for addressing the complaint; (f) was the person in (e) a public servant or a contractor; (g) if the person in (e) is a contractor, how much did the services of this person cost and what was the hourly rate; and (h) was any paid travel required to handle this complaint?
Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested is not available in Canadian Heritage databases or tracking systems. The data is the property of the office of the sport integrity commissioner. The questions should therefore be referred to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada’s Abuse-Free Sport program.
Question No. 1550—Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to the processing of refugee travel documents, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what service standards exist for the processing of refugee travel documents and for those documents identified as urgent; (b) what is the total number of applications processed; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were identified as urgent; (d) what is the current backlog of (i) normal, (ii) urgent, applications; (e) what is the total number of employees dedicated to processing (i) urgent, (ii) non-urgent, refugee travel documents; and (f) what measures does the government have in place to ensure that applications are processed in the order in which they are received?
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is concerned, the response to part (a) of the question is as follows.
The service standards for the processing of refugee travel document applications from 2015-16 to 2019-20 consisted of four service levels: for applications received by mail, 20 days; for applications received in person via mail-out or pickup, 10 days; for applications submitted in person with express service request, two to nine business days as required for pickup; and for applications submitted in person with urgent service request, within two business days for pickup.
In response to parts (b) and (c) of the question, the total numbers of applications processed for each calendar year, with urgent cases in parentheses, are as follows: for 2015-16, 2,957 (249); for 2016-17, 11,773 (357); for 2017-18, 15,716 (387); for 2018-19, 17,476 (369); for 2019-20, 23,121 (701); for 2020-21, 10,364 (2); for 2021-22, 12,248 (1,067); for 2022-23, 15,567 (1,596); and for 2023-24, 2,281 (109).
In response to part (d) of the question, the backlog of applications in the certificate of identity section does not differentiate between applications for certificates of identity and refugee travel documents. The total inventory was approximately 38,300 applications as of June 6, 2023, with 29,800 considered backlog, having been received prior to February 1, 2023. The backlog was expected to be cleared by September.
The volume of urgent applications as of June 6, 2023 was 1,600. Urgent service fees are not being charged, but applications are being treated as priority for the purpose of meeting immediate needs.
With respect to part (e) of the question, the total number of passport officers for this line of business is approximately 18-20: 15 passport officers are working on urgent requests and current files that fall under the Service Fees Act; three to five passport officers are working on files from the backlog, that is, pre-February 1, 2023, files; and an additional 20 passport officers from across the department are processing applications during overtime, focusing on the backlog.
In answer to part (f) of the question, a first-in, first-out method is used unless the files are urgent. However, since the Service Fees Act came into effect, applications in the backlog and those received post February 1, 2023, are treated separately.
Question No. 1562—Mr. Gerald Soroka:
With regard to judicial vacancies in the province of Alberta as of June 1, 2023: (a) how many vacancies are there in Alberta, broken down by level and type of court; (b) of the vacancies in (a), how long has each position been vacant for; (c) does the government have a timeline to fill each vacancy, and, if so, (i) when will all of the vacancies be filled, (ii) how many of the vacancies will be filled by the end of 2023; (d) what is the current backlog in the court's calendar, broken down by level and type of court; and (e) what is the government's reason as to why the vacancies have not yet been filled?
Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to judicial vacancies in the province of Alberta as of June 1, 2023, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada updates the data pertaining to judicial vacancies shortly after the beginning of each month. It can be found at the following link: https://www.fja.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/judges-juges-eng.aspx.
Any information regarding judicial vacancies in Alberta’s provincial courts should be sought from the Alberta Ministry of Justice.
The current vacancy number presents an incomplete picture. Despite the significant number of appointments made this year, there has been a high number of judges retiring or electing to become supernumerary. This means they have opted to work part-time, which despite their continuing to hear cases is noted as a vacancy that needs to be filled. Vacancies have also been created by elevating trial judges to an appellate court.
I will continue to make high-quality, diverse appointments, and the number of vacancies will decline. A total of 18 appointments have been made across the country since July 26, 2023. The government has also added 116 new judicial positions since 2015.
The new judicial appointment process, announced in October 2016, is showing real results for Canadians and is fostering a judiciary that reflects the rich diversity of Canadian society. For the first time, we are tracking how many new judges identify as indigenous, visible minorities, people with disabilities, members of ethnocultural groups and 2SLGBTQI+.
We have also heard from diverse bar associations and others within the legal community to reach new networks of potential candidates and encourage them to put their names forward for consideration.
Under the new process since 2016, more than half, nearly 54%, or 308 out of 569, of judges appointed or elevated by our government are women, 4% are indigenous,14% are visible minorities, 6% identify as 2SLGBTQI+ and 33% are functionally bilingual, meaning they are able to fulfil four core competencies in both official languages.
By contrast, from 2007-2015, 32%, or less than one-third of new judges appointed by the previous government were women.
Our government has appointed more than 645 judges since November 2015. These exceptional jurists represent the diversity that strengthens Canada.
We look forward to continuing to work together with the legal community to achieve a judiciary that truly looks like Canada.
Question No. 1565—Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the April 11, 2023 announcement by the Prime Minister that Canada would send 21,000 assault rifles and 2.4 million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine: (a) what are the details of the 2.4 million rounds of ammunition, including the (i) amount of rounds by each caliber, (ii) amount being spent per round by caliber or type, (iii) names and addresses of the vendors and whether they are also the manufacturers; (b) were any of the manufacturers in (a) not Canadian, and, if so, who made this decision and what was their rationale; (c) what are the details of the 21,000 assault rifles, including the (i) manufacturer, (ii) quantity of each model and type, (iii) cost per unit, (iv) location where the rifle was manufactured; (d) if the government is paying Colt Canada a markup for any rifles or rounds of ammunition, what is the (i) manufacturer's, (ii) marked up, price; and (e) what is the total amount which will be spent on the (i) 21,000 assault rifles, (ii) 2.4 million rounds of ammunition?
Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada stands firmly with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as they fight to defend their sovereignty, freedom and independence in the face of Russia’s illegal invasion. National Defence has been unwavering in its support and will continue to supply Ukraine with the tools and equipment it needs to defend its sovereignty and security and win this war.
Since February 2022, National Defence has committed over $1.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine, including armoured vehicles, heavy artillery, body armour, gas masks, helmets, drone cameras, funding for high-resolution satellite imagery, anti-armour weapons systems, rocket launchers and small arms and ammunition, as well as other highly specialized pieces of military equipment. The announcement of April 11, 2023, of 21,000 rifles and 2.4 million rounds of ammunition, as part of a total package valued at approximately $59 million, is a further example of Canada’s steadfast support.
With the exception of items sourced directly from the Canadian Armed Forces inventory, the
Canadian Commercial Corporation is the contracting authority for equipment purchased by the Government of Canada from Canadian industry for donation to Ukraine. In regard to the current purchase, the Canadian Commercial Corporation awarded the contract for both rifles and ammunition to Colt Canada Corporation, a Canadian company.
The 21,000 rifles purchased are all variants of the Canadian Armed Forces C7/C8 platform chambered in 5.56 mm, manufactured by Colt Canada Corporation. The 2.4 million rounds of ammunition are a variety of calibres, including 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm, .308 calibre, and .50 calibre. Specific details regarding the rifles and ammunition, such as number of rounds broken down by type and by calibre or the number of rifles broken down by model, cannot be disclosed for reasons of operational security. Colt Canada Corporation was contracted to provide this ammunition but does not manufacture it. Instead, Colt Canada sourced the ammunition from its supply chain, which spans North America. The Government of Canada is not paying Colt Canada Corporation a marked-up price on either the rifles or the ammunition.
In accordance with a request from the Government of Ukraine and in order to maintain operational security for Canadian personnel and Ukrainian forces, Canada does not publicize the details of contracts related to military assistance to Ukraine.
More information about Canada’s military support to Ukraine can be found at the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/campaigns/canadian-military-support-to-ukraine.html.
Question No. 1568—Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence: on what date did the government sign a bilateral funding agreement with the Government of Saskatchewan?
Hon. Marci Ien (Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, negotiations are under way with the provinces and territories, including Saskatchewan, to establish bilateral funding agreements to support the implementation of the national action plan to end gender-based violence. A bilateral funding agreement with the Government of Saskatchewan concerning the national action plan to end gender-based violence has not been signed at this time.
On February 28, 2023, I announced that a bilateral agreement had been established with the Government of Saskatchewan in the amount of $1,000,000 to support crisis hotlines across Saskatchewan. Supporting crisis hotlines is an important initiative that is part of the ongoing efforts by the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan to address gender-based violence in the province. This funding is helping crisis hotlines offer more robust services, resources and support to serve the urgent needs of all survivors of gender-based violence and their families, no matter where they live in Saskatchewan.
Question No. 1570—Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to government protection for whistleblowers: (a) what specific protection is provided for whistleblowers who publicize wrongdoing by ministers or ministerial exempt staff; and (b) what mechanisms, if any, are in place to ensure that ministers, exempt staff, or other government officials do not punish such whistleblowers?
Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, public servants who disclose wrongdoing within or relating to the public sector, under either the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act or under any other act of Parliament, are protected from reprisal for having made that disclosure. They may not be fired, demoted, disciplined or subjected to any other measure that adversely affects their employment or working conditions because they have made a protected disclosure.
The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act provides that public servants may make a disclosure to their supervisor, or to the senior officer designated by the chief executive of their organization, or to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. In circumstances where there is not sufficient time to make the disclosure in one of these ways, and the disclosure is related to a serious offence under an act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, or there is an imminent risk of a substantial danger to the life, health and safety of persons or the environment, the public servant may make a protected disclosure to the public.
Under section 42.3 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, anyone who takes a reprisal against a public servant, or who directs that a reprisal be taken, commits an offence and is guilty of either an indictable offence and is liable to a fine or imprisonment, or both; or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine or imprisonment, or both.
Question No. 1571—Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and the Mission Cultural Fund: (a) (i) why, (ii) on what day, did the program cease operations; (b) did the government conduct any study on the effectiveness of the program, and, if so, what are the details, including, (i) who conducted it, (ii) when it was completed, (iii) what the findings were; (c) is there any other program or proposed program at GAC that will provide funding for celebrity chefs' airfares or the telling of seniors' sex stories abroad, and, if so, what are the details of the replacement program?
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to part (a) of the question, as scheduled, the mission cultural fund, or MCF, sunsetted on March 31, 2023, and ceased activities.
Regarding part (b), a departmental evaluation of the MCF was conducted in 2020 by the diplomacy, trade and corporate evaluation division of Global Affairs Canada. The evaluation is publicly accessible on the departmental website at https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/publications/evaluation/2020/mcf-fcm-final-evaluation.aspx?lang=eng.
With regard to part (c), there is no replacement program or proposed program to replace the MCF.
Question No. 1572—Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and shrinkflation: (a) will the government be lowering the size or volume threshold for items which are subject to GST when they are under a certain level (e.g., 500 ml of ice cream); (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) on what items will the threshold be lowered, (ii) what will be the new threshold, (iii) when will the new threshold take effect; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative or unconfirmed, how much additional GST revenue is the government expected to receive as a result of shrinkflation, and what will the additional revenue be used for?
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at this time, there are no plans to change the existing, long-standing size thresholds used in respect of basic groceries and snack foods.
Under the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax, or GST/HST, suppliers of goods and services in Canada report and remit the total amount of GST/HST collected on their taxable supplies to the Canada Revenue Agency. Neither the Canada Revenue Agency nor the Department of Finance Canada collect data on the GST/HST collected, or not collected, on types of specific goods and services, by particular methods of sale or by types of packaging. The Department of Finance does not have any public estimates that it is able to share on the potential amount of additional tax revenue from changes in the packaging or size of basic groceries.
When the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax, or GST/HST, was introduced, it was determined that basic groceries should be zero-rated or fully relieved of tax, reflecting a widely held view of Canadians that staple grocery items should not be taxed. Accordingly, under the GST/HST sales of many beverage and food items for human consumption are tax-relieved, including fruits and vegetables, eggs, breakfast cereals, most milk products, and fresh meat, poultry and fish.
The Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for the administration of the GST/HST system, including the determination of the tax status of specific food and beverage items.
Question No. 1575—Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to applications submitted to the Universal Broadband Fund program that have not been selected for funding within Hamilton, Ontario: (a) how many applications have not been selected for funding for projects located within Hamilton, Ontario; (b) what are the names of the interested parties whose applications have not been selected for funding; (c) what is the location within Hamilton of projects whose applications have not been selected for funding; and (d) what is the amount of funding requested by each interested party that have not been selected for funding?
Hon. Gudie Hutchings (Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there were 17 applications submitted to the universal broadband fund program that have not been selected for funding within Hamilton, Ontario.
In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Therefore, information regarding applications that are under review, withdrawn or rejected is being withheld on the grounds that the information may constitute third party information.
Question No. 1576—Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to applications submitted to the Universal Broadband Fund program that have not been selected for funding: what (i) are the names of interested parties, (ii) are the locations of the projects, (iii) is the amount of funding requested for each project?
Hon. Gudie Hutchings (Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there have been applications submitted to the universal broadband fund program that have not been selected for funding in all provinces and territories except for the Yukon.
In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Therefore, information regarding applications that are under review, withdrawn or rejected is being withheld on the grounds that the information may constitute third party information.
Question No. 1580—Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to statistics recorded by Health Canada pertaining to its Medical Assistance in Dying Program (MAID), since June 2016: (a) how many veterans have made a request for MAID, broken down by year; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory; (c) what is the median age of veterans who have requested MAID, broken down by year; (d) of the requests in (a), how many were (i) granted, (ii) denied; and (e) what is the median age of veterans whose request for MAID were (i) granted, (ii) denied?
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada supports Health Canada by collecting data related to the medical assistance in dying program, MAID. Aggregate statistics on the state of MAID in Canada are published annually by Health Canada. The “Third annual report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2021” is available on the Health Canada website at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2021.html. However, Statistics Canada does not specifically collect or record data pertaining to veterans and their use of the program.
Question No. 1581—Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the government's plan to increase the mandatory security fees at airports by 33 percent: (a) will the fee increase lead to faster security screening for passengers, and, if so, by how many minutes on average will passenger wait times decrease; and (b) what methodology was used to determine and quantify the decrease in the average wait time?
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the air travellers security charge came into effect in April 2002 to fund the air travel security system, including the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, which is the federal authority responsible for the security screening of air passengers and their baggage. Also included in the air travel security system are Transport Canada’s related regulatory oversight and the contracting of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers on selected flights. The air travellers security charge is generally paid by passengers when they purchase airline tickets. The Government of Canada has committed to balancing air travellers security charge revenues with air travel security system expenses over time.
Budget 2023 proposed to provide $1.8 billion over five years, starting in 2023-24, to maintain and increase the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority’s level of service, improve screening wait times, and strengthen security measures at airports. To support financing of this proposal, budget 2023 proposes to increase air travellers security charge rates by 32.85%. The air travellers security charge rates were last increased in 2010, at which time they were raised by 52.4%.
The cost of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority’s operations has grown along with traffic volumes over the past 12 years, whereas its annual, fixed appropriations have not. As a result, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority has been receiving annual top-ups to help it meet increased volumes. The vast majority of the incremental revenues generated by the air travellers security charge increase will go toward a three-year top-up versus the historical one-year. A portion of the incremental revenue will be used to improve wait times. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority’s current wait time target is based on meeting a service level where on average 85% of all passengers wait less than 15 minutes to be screened at Canada’s top eight airports on an annual basis. This means that longer wait times may occur during peak periods, when checkpoints experience higher traffic volumes. Details on the proposed changes to wait times are being worked out with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
Question No. 1583—Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to media reports that Canadian soldiers in Latvia have had to purchase their own modern ballistic helmets equipped with built-in hearing protection: (a) why was such equipment not provided by the government to all Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) soldiers serving in Latvia; (b) will the soldiers who had to purchase these helmets with their own funds be reimbursed; and (c) what is the timeline for when these helmets, or ones of a similar quality, will be provided to all CAF soldiers participating in theatre or live fire exercises?
Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ensuring that our soldiers are equipped with modern and effective equipment is a top priority for National Defence. This includes safe, modern ballistic helmets.
The following is a response to parts (a), (b) and (c).
All members of the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, are provided with the required operational equipment, whether serving at home or abroad.
When deploying, CAF members are provided with an authorized list of clothing and equipment specific to that mission. The operational headquarters, in collaboration with the task force and supported by the respective technical and functional authorities, creates and amends this list as required. Prior to their deployment, all CAF members are provided the clothing and equipment on this list, should they not already have it. For those deployed to Latvia, this would include a helmet.
Per CAF policy, the unauthorized procurement and use of weapons, personal protective equipment, and clothing is not allowed in any form.
As such, no CAF member deployed to Latvia was forced to purchase their own helmet for safety or operational reasons. Should a member buy their own equipment, it is based on their preference, and it is not due to shortages. Members are not reimbursed in such cases.
Question No. 1587—Mr. Fraser Tolmie:
With regard to delays in the reimbursement of meal expenses for Canadian Armed Forces members serving in Poland: (a) what was the total number and total value of meal expense reimbursements (i) requested between January 1 and June 1, 2023, (ii) issued as of June 7, 2023; (b) what was the average number of days between when the reimbursement was requested and when the payment was issued; (c) what are the reasons why reimbursements were delayed; and (d) on what date were or will each of the reasons in (c) be rectified?
Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the sustainment and support of deployed troops is always a top Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, priority. This includes ensuring the provision of food for our members, no matter where they are deployed around the world.
With regard to (a)(i)(ii), (c) and (d), over the past year, Canada has rapidly expanded Operation Unifier with a focus on providing immediate training support to Ukraine as it fights for its sovereignty and security. In most cases, the CAF provides food for its members through CAF military cooks or those of our allies. However, given the geographically dispersed nature of the training cadres, this was not logistically feasible for most training locations in Poland. In such cases, members were authorized to receive a per diem in line with Treasury Board policies. This resulted in an unprecedented number of claims submitted.
To address this issue, the Department of National Defence extended the deployment duration of administrative personnel who volunteered to stay and support the mission. Their efforts, along with those of newly deployed personnel in March 2023, cleared the backlog.
Between January 1 and June 1 of 2023, 316 meal allowance claims were submitted for reimbursement by soldiers deployed to Poland on Operation Unifier for a total value of $683,076. As of June 7, 2023, 290 of these claims had been settled for a total value of $569,780.
All claims have since been settled, with the last from this period paid out on June 24, 2023.
With regard to (b), in March 2023, the average time between meal allowance claim submission and payout was four to six weeks. Since then, the payout time for these claims has steadily reduced, such that the current average is now two to three weeks.
Finally, the CAF has also since expanded the number of administrative staff positions for future deployments to ensure this situation does not reoccur.
Question No. 1588—Mr. Fraser Tolmie:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members having to purchase their own equipment in the last two years: (a) how many instances is the CAF aware of that were a result of shortages in what the CAF provides to its members; (b) what is the estimated value of the purchases in (a); (c) what are the details of all such purchases that were eventually reimbursed by the government, including, for each, the (i) item description and quantity, (ii) amount of reimbursement, (iii) month of purchase, (iv) month of reimbursement; (d) what measures were taken by the CAF to ensure that members serving abroad had all of the equipment needed prior to their arrival abroad; and (e) were there any instances where CAF members arrived in a country without being equipped with all of the necessary equipment, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, the (i) country, (ii) number of CAF members impacted, (iii) details of what was not provided, (iv) date members arrived, (v) status of whether the equipment has since been provided, (vi) reason the equipment or gear was not provided?
Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ensuring that our soldiers are equipped with modern and effective equipment is a top priority for the Department of National Defence.
With regard to (a), (b) and (c), all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, are provided with the required operational equipment, whether serving at home or abroad. Should a member buy their own equipment, it is based on their preference and is not due to shortages. Members are not reimbursed in such cases, and details regarding equipment purchased by members are not centrally tracked. When deploying, CAF members are provided with an authorized list of clothing and equipment specific to that mission. The operational headquarters, in collaboration with the task force, and supported by the respective technical and functional authorities, creates and amends this list as required. Prior to their deployment, all CAF members are provided the clothing and equipment on this list, should they not already have it.
Per CAF policy, the unauthorized procurement and use of weapons, personal protective equipment and clothing is not allowed in any form.
If a shortage does occur, the technical authority responsible for the equipment will either allow the concerned unit to purchase what is missing, using a short list of pre-approved items, or initiate an emergency procurement to ensure that no deployed and/or deploying member of the CAF is without proper operational equipment.
In November 2022, the Operation Unifier training element, based in the United Kingdom, identified a deficiency with the CAF-issued wet weather clothing. In December 2022, deployed members were authorized to procure suitable wet weather clothing from an approved list. To date, approximately 400 CAF members deployed over three rotations from August 2022 to January 2024 have received this authorization.
Question No. 1597—Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency: what is the spending by governmental and non-governmental organizations on settlement services for people (immigrants, refugees, asylum claimants and other individuals) who have entered Canada at official and irregular border crossings, broken down by the (i) organization, (ii) fiscal year, since 2015-16, (iii) projected spending for the 2023-24 fiscal year, (iv) province and territory, (v) program spending?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CBSA has not incurred any spending on settlement services for immigrants, refugees, asylum claimants and other individuals in the indicated time frame.
Question No. 1602—Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to Canada’s trade relationship with China, the Tibetan Autonomous Region’s (TAR) recent GDP growth in the first quarter of 2023, and the general economic forecast of the region: (a) what role do Canada’s trade offices in China, the consulates and embassies that offer Trade Commissioner Services, or the embassy in Beijing, play in the relationships between Chinese and Canadian companies; (b) is there a guide, guidelines, model or other document that outlines what Canada considers as good governance and best practices, used in Canada’s trade, and, if so, have there been instances where good governance and best practices were found to be in violation of or against the spirit of the guide, guidelines, model or outline; (c) since 2020, has there been an increase in interest or communications at Canada’s trade offices in China from companies about exporting or importing goods or conducting business in the TAR, and, if so, from which companies; (d) are there plans for Canada to open a trade office in Lhasa, TAR, and, if not, under what circumstances would Canada make such plans; (e) have Canada’s trade offices in China promoted trade in the TAR; and (f) did Canada attend the one-day Tibet Development Forum held in Beijing on May 23, 2023, and, if so, (i) what was the program of the forum, (ii) what events did Canada attend, (iii) did Canada speak or raise questions at the forum, and, if so, what was said by Canada and who were the guests present?
Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to (a), Canada’s Trade Commissioner Service, TCS, helps Canadian businesses grow with confidence by connecting them with our funding and support programs, international opportunities, and our network of trade commissioners in over 160 cities worldwide, including with our network in greater China, including Canada’s embassy in Beijing, its consulates in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Chongqing and its trade offices across 10 secondary markets. The TCS helps companies find key local players that have the knowledge needed for clients to refine and carry out their international strategy. This may include connecting Canadian companies with potential local Chinese business partners.
With regard to (b), the Government of Canada expects Canadian companies active abroad to abide by all relevant laws, to respect human rights in their operations and to adopt best practices and internationally respected guidelines on responsible business conduct, such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. In support of these objectives, Canada’s responsible business conduct, or RBC, strategy – “Responsible Business Conduct Abroad: Canada’s Strategy for the Future”-- was launched in 2022. This five-year strategy, 2022-2027, sets out priorities for the Government of Canada, through the TCS and partners, to provide guidance and tools in order to support Canadian companies to uphold Canada’s RBC expectations. The TCS provides advice to Canadian companies to identify and mitigate risks and to strengthen their responsible business conduct practices. If there is a legitimate concern and there is credible information of a Canadian company’s misconduct or wrongdoing abroad, the TCS can withhold all services and support from the company.
With regard to (c), available records show no such interest or inquiries to Canada’s trade offices.
With regard to (d), there are no plans for Canada to open a trade office in Lhasa in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, TAR. Canada makes plans to open trade offices in a given location based on market potential for Canadian clients and based on broader international commercial strategies. The 10 trade offices currently operating in China were established when two separate Canadian strategies were executed. The first six offices were established under Canada’s global commerce strategy in 2007, while the final four were added as part of the Global markets action plan in 2013.
With regard to (e), Canada’s trade offices in China have not promoted trade in the TAR. The current trade offices do not deal with any matters related to the TAR.
With regard to (f), Canada did not attend the event.
Question No. 1603—Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to Canada’s trade relationship with China and the activities of Canadian companies involved in development projects in China, specifically those that have been involved with mining, hydroelectricity, and rail, including, but not limited to, Bombardier Inc., SNC Lavalin, Nortel, Eldorado Gold Corp., Power Corp., RailPartners, Continental Minerals, GobiMin, MinCo Capital Corp., Sterling Group, Inter-Citic Minerals, Tri-River Ventures, China Gold International Resources, and Roctest LTD between 2000 and 2020 in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan areas in Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, and Yunnan: (a) has Canada ever facilitated contact or participated in the meetings between Chinese companies and Canadian companies involved with development projects, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, (i) who participated, (ii) on which dates, (iii) at what locations; (b) has Canada ever provided funding for development projects in the TAR and Tibetan areas, such as those in Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, and Yunnan, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, (i) for which projects, (ii) the amounts, (iii) the source of these funds; (c) was there a guide, guidelines, model, or other document that outlines what the government considered as good corporate governance and best practices for Canadian companies operating in the TAR and Tibetan areas of China; (d) what mechanisms exist in the case where there are complaints as a result of violations on the part of Canadian companies of the policies, norms or official guidelines delineated in (c); and (e) if such mechanisms exist, (i) what complaints have been made, (ii) how were these complaints addressed?
Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to part (a), based on available records, Canada has not facilitated any such meetings between Canadian and Chinese companies involved in development projects.
With regard to part (b), Global Affairs Canada does not disaggregate the geographic scope of international assistance projects beyond the country level. Therefore, data specific to development projects in the Tibetan Autonomous Region or the other Tibetan areas referenced are not available. Canada’s bilateral aid program to China expired in 2013.
With regard to part (c), Canada’s responsible business conduct expectations, including Canada’s Responsible Business Conduct Strategy, applies to all Canadian companies active abroad, regardless of the region in which they operate.
With regard to part (d), the Government of Canada provides two non-judicial dispute-resolution mechanisms: Canada’s National Contact Point, or NCP, for Responsible Business Conduct and the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, or CORE. Canada’s NCP has a mandate to facilitate dialogue/mediation to help resolves issues raised about the observance of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, or the Guidelines, by multinational enterprises operating in or from Canada, in any economic sectors. The NCP can receive complaints related to any of the areas covered in the eleven chapters of the Guidelines, including those dealing with human rights, employment and industrial relations, and the environment. Outcomes of the NCP process can include agreement on remedy, changes to company policy, as well as relationship-building between companies and communities where they operate.
The CORE has a mandate to review allegations of human rights abuses arising from the operations of Canadian companies abroad in the mining, oil and gas, and garment sectors. The CORE can undertake a review on its own initiative or in response to a complaint received, offer informal mediation services, and issue recommendations at the end of a review. The CORE is required to report publicly throughout the process. The office of the CORE began accepting complaints on March 15, 2021. The Government of Canada expects Canadian companies involved in a dispute-resolution process to participate in good faith. If a Canadian company fails to act in good faith during a review or follow-up process, recommendations can be made to implement trade measures such as the withdrawal of Trade Commissioner Service support, and recommending that Export Development Canada and the Canadian Commercial Corporation withdraw future support.
With regard to part (e), Canada’s NCP has closed 25 cases since 2000. The NCP publishes a Final Statement at the conclusion of each case. These Final Statements, as well as other information on past NCP cases, can be found on the NCP’s website. The CORE publishes a quarterly report on complaints received and is required to publish reports on its reviews. CORE publications are available on the CORE’s website.
Question No. 1605—Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to Order in Council 2023-0524 dated June 1, 2023: (a) who is named in Schedule A; and (b) what offences and convictions were listed in Schedule B?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, or RPM, also known as clemency, is the discretionary power of the Crown to grant pardons, remit sentences, and exercise other forms of clemency. Clemency can be exercised either by the Governor in Council under sections 748 and 748.1 of the Criminal Code, or by the Governor General under the Letters Patent, which is the document that bestows power to the Governor General. In practice, the granting of an act of clemency by the Governor in Council or by the Governor General will occur only after receiving the advice of a Minister of the Crown. In most cases, it is the Minister of Public Safety who makes the recommendation.
As outlined in the Order in Council 2023-0524, the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety, ordered the remission of all outstanding fines and a conditional pardon to the person named in Schedule A. A conditional pardon can be ordered prior to eligibility, or due to ineligibility, under the Criminal Records Act, or prior to eligibility under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA. There are criteria that must be met in order for a conditional pardon to be granted, including the aforementioned evidence of substantial injustice or undue hardship.
In the case of clemency pardons under the RPM, there is no framework for disclosure because the over-riding principle and convention has been to guard the privacy of the individual in receipt of clemency, other than the notification in the Canada Gazette concerning the fact of the pardon or remission of fines.
As such, the request to disclose the name listed in Schedule A and offences including convictions listed in Schedule B for Order in Council 2023-0524, cannot be fulfilled.
Clemency is granted in exceptional circumstances in deserving cases involving federal offences, where no other remedy exists in law to reduce severe negative effects of criminal sanctions. Clemency can be requested for numerous reasons, including employment, perceived inequity, medical conditions, immigration to Canada, compassion and financial hardship.
The Parole Board of Canada, or PBC, reviews applications, conducts investigations at the direction of the Minister of Public Safety, and makes recommendations to the Minister regarding whether to grant the clemency request.
There are several guiding principles regarding the exercise of clemency which are assessed and reviewed by the PBC in accordance with section 110 of the CCRA: there is evidence of substantial injustice or undue hardship that exceed the normal consequences of a conviction and sentence; the application is examined on its own merit, taking into consideration the circumstances solely of the applicant; the applicant has exhausted all other avenues available under the Criminal Code or other pertinent legislation; the independence of the judiciary shall be respected; and the RPM does not result in an increased penalty.
Question No. 1607—Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to revenue collected by the government from the federal carbon tax: (a) does the revenue collected go into the government's general revenue fund or a separate fund; (b) if the revenue goes into a separate fund, what are the details, including the name and balance of such a fund; and (c) how much revenue did the government collect from the carbon tax in the 2022-23 fiscal year, in total and broken down by province?
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all proceeds collected from the federal fuel charge go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, or GGPPA, all proceeds from the federal fuel charge assessed must also be returned from this Fund back to the jurisdiction of origin.
Pursuant to section 270 of the GGPPA, the Minister of the Environment must table a report in Parliament annually with respect to the administration of the act, which includes details of proceeds assessed and how they were returned.
The most recent annual report was tabled in March 2023, in respect of a pollution price of $40 during the 2021 22 fuel charge year. For reference, that report is published here: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/greenhouse-gas-annual-report-2021.html.
Detailed information in respect of the 2022 23 fuel charge year will be available in the next annual report, which is required to be tabled by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change by the end of the current fiscal year. Note that these data have yet to be fully assessed and audited as part of the 2022 23 year end Public Accounts process.
In provinces where the fuel charge applies, the majority of proceeds are returned to households through climate action incentive, or CAI, payments while the balance of proceeds is to be returned to small and medium sized businesses and Indigenous groups. Proceeds relating specifically to the use of natural gas and propane by farmers are returned directly to farmers via a refundable tax credit.
Over time, any difference between proceeds assessed and disbursed in each jurisdiction is corrected through adjustments to future CAI payment amounts, such that all proceeds are returned to the jurisdiction of origin. These differences are reported upon in the annual reports.
Question No. 1612—Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to VIA Rail’s passenger service: what was the operating revenue and the operating costs for each year between 2018 and 2022 for (i) the Toronto—Québec City corridor, (ii) each VIA Rail passenger service route outside of the Toronto—Québec City corridor?
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail Canada's operating revenue and costs for each service route are reported in the annual reports available at https://media.viarail.ca/en/reports#annual-reports. For fiscal year 2018, this is available in Annual Report 2018 on page 9; for fiscal year 2019, in Annual Report 2019 on page 9; for fiscal year 2020, in Annual Report 2020, section 4, on pages 3-4; for fiscal year 2021, in Annual Report 2021 on page 14; and for fiscal year 2022, in Annual Report 2022 on page 18.
Question No. 1614—Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the government’s Carbon Management Strategy: what are the details of all consultative bodies formed by the government, including the (i) name of the consultative body, (ii) names of individuals or organizations included, (iii) government officials and ministers involved, (iv) dates of each meeting held, (v) reports or recommendations put forward by the consultative body?
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, reducing emissions remains the top priority of Canada’s climate plan, recognizing that the best way to tackle climate change is to stop new emissions from entering the atmosphere. Carbon management technologies will be a critical tool for heavy industry sectors to reduce their emissions and permanently remove existing historical emissions from the atmosphere. Carbon management is one of many innovative technology areas helping to advance climate action in support of Canada’s net-zero targets.
The name of the consultative body formed in spring 2021 by the government to provide strategic advice and input to the Carbon Management Strategy, previously called the Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage, or CCUS, Strategy, was the CCUS Thought Leaders’ Senior Reference Group.
The group was comprised of thought leaders external to the federal and provincial governments selected because of their knowledge of carbon management technologies and their use or development in the Canadian context or their ongoing leadership in fields relevant to carbon management technology development and deployment. These leaders were expected to bring the sum of their relevant experience to the group, rather than representing one single organization. The senior reference group’s various perspectives were captured at these three meetings but were not compiled into formal reports nor were there formal consensus recommendations.
The individuals included in the CCUS Thought Leaders’ senior reference group were Ed Whittingham, Clean Energy Consultant and former Executive Director, Pembina Institute, and a fellow at the Public Policy Forum; Marcius Extavour, Executive Director of the NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE; Maria Nsouli, Vice President, Impact Investment Fund at BMO; Sandra Odendahl, Vice President, Social Impact & Sustainability at Scotiabank; Robert Niven, Chief Executive Officer of CarbonCure; Anna Stukas, Vice President, Business Development at Carbon Engineering; Claude Letourneau, Chief Executive Officer of Svante; Adam Auer, Vice President, Environment and Sustainability at the Cement Association of Canada; Tim Wiwchar, General Manager of Carbon Capture and Storage in Canada at Shell Canada; Beth Hardy Valiaho, Vice President, Strategy & Stakeholder Relations at the International CCS Knowledge Centre; Richard Chalaturnyk of the University of Alberta; Jeff Pearson, President of Wolf Carbon; and Chris Grant, Vice President, Regional Development at Suncor.
The senior reference group was convened by Drew Leyburne, Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy Efficiency and Technology Sector at Natural Resources Canada to meet on three occasions in 2021: on April 14, June 3, and July 13, 2021.
Question No. 1617—Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the government’s thought-leaders senior reference group referred to in a February 2022 briefing note prepared for Natural Resources Canada deputy minister John Hannaford: (a) what were the criteria for selecting members of this group; (b) what is the membership of this group, including the names of individuals and organizations represented; (c) what are the details of all former members of this group, including the names of individuals and organizations represented; (d) what are the details of all meetings held by this group, including (i) the date of the meetings, (ii) the minister and government officials in attendance, (iii) whether minutes of the meetings were recorded; (e) what recommendations did the group make regarding the government’s Carbon Management Strategy; and (f) what are the details of all reports, including draft reports, prepared by this group, including the (i) date they were prepared, (ii) recommendations included, and (iii) recipients of the reports?
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, reducing emissions remains the top priority of Canada’s climate plan, recognizing that the best way to tackle climate change is to stop new emissions from entering the atmosphere. Carbon management technologies will be a critical tool for heavy industry sectors to reduce their emissions and permanently remove existing historical emissions from the atmosphere. Carbon management is one of many innovative technology areas helping to advance climate action in support of Canada’s net-zero targets.
The name of the consultative body formed in spring 2021 by the government to provide strategic advice and input to the Carbon Management Strategy, previously called the Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage, or CCUS, Strategy, was the CCUS Thought Leaders’ Senior Reference Group.
The group was comprised of thought leaders external to the federal and provincial governments selected because of their knowledge of carbon management technologies and their use or development in the Canadian context or their ongoing leadership in fields relevant to carbon management technology development and deployment. These leaders were expected to bring the sum of their relevant experience to the group, rather than representing one single organization. The senior reference group’s various perspectives were captured at these three meetings but were not compiled into formal reports nor were there formal consensus recommendations.
The individuals included in the CCUS Thought Leaders’ senior reference group were Ed Whittingham, Clean Energy Consultant and former Executive Director, Pembina Institute, and a fellow at the Public Policy Forum; Marcius Extavour, Executive Director of the NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE; Maria Nsouli, Vice President, Impact Investment Fund at BMO; Sandra Odendahl, Vice President, Social Impact & Sustainability at Scotiabank; Robert Niven, Chief Executive Officer of CarbonCure; Anna Stukas, Vice President, Business Development at Carbon Engineering; Claude Letourneau, Chief Executive Officer of Svante; Adam Auer, Vice President, Environment and Sustainability at the Cement Association of Canada; Tim Wiwchar, General Manager of Carbon Capture and Storage in Canada at Shell Canada; Beth Hardy Valiaho, Vice President, Strategy & Stakeholder Relations at the International CCS Knowledge Centre; Richard Chalaturnyk of the University of Alberta; Jeff Pearson, President of Wolf Carbon; and Chris Grant, Vice President, Regional Development at Suncor.
The senior reference group was convened by Drew Leyburne, Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy Efficiency and Technology Sector at Natural Resources Canada to meet on three occasions in 2021: on April 14, June 3, and July 13, 2021.
Question No. 1618—Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the handling of cases and claims pursuant to the Indian Residential School 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, request for direction, and other proceedings where Canada has been either the plaintiff or defendant before the 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 June 1, 2023 (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year?
Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the expenditures incurred between 2013 and June 1, 2023, in legal proceedings pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement related to survivors of St. Anne's Residential School, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege or settlement privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.
The total actual and notional legal costs associated with legal proceedings pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement related to survivors of St. Anne's Residential School, for the period of January 1, 2013, to May 9, 2018, was provided in response to an earlier question and amount to approximatively $2,314,000. The total legal costs for the subsequent period, from May 10, 2018, to June 1, 2023, amount to approximatively $1,939,200. These costs cover all types of court proceedings, including actions, requests for direction, motions, costs proceedings and appeals. In most of these files, the Crown did not initiate the proceedings but rather acted as a defendant or respondent. The total legal costs are with respect to litigation and litigation support services, which were provided, in these cases, by the Department of Justice. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs are composed of file related legal disbursements paid by the Department and then cost-recovered from the client-departments or agencies, as well as the costs of legal agents who may be retained by the Minister of Justice to provide litigation services in certain cases.
The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information contained in Department of Justice systems, as of July 5, 2023.
Question No. 1619—Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to memorandums and briefing notes sent to the Minister of Public Safety or the minister’s office concerning prisoner transfers since January 1, 2019, about prisoner transfers or potential prisoner transfers: what are the details of all such documents, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) type of document, (vi) subject matter, (vii) summary of contents, (viii) file number?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2019, the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister’s office has not received any memorandums or briefing notes from Public Safety branches concerning prisoner transfers.
The Correctional Service of Canada has a process in place to provide advanced notification to the Minister’s office about transfers involving high profile offenders. While this can include verbal briefings, often notifications are sent via email. Dating back to January 1, 2019, 39 transfer notifications have been issued to the office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the office of the Minister of Public Safety.
Typically, the titles of these email briefings and the contents of the email contain identifiable information, such as the name of an offender or the name of the receiving institution, and is therefore protected information under the Privacy Act.
Question No. 1623—Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the $3.7 million in budget 2022 allocated for the implementation of a Mental Health Fund for Black federal public servants: (a) how much of the funding allocated for fiscal year 2022-23 remains unspent; (b) how many full-time equivalent employees are working on the implementation of the fund; (c) what tools and programs have been created since the implementation began; (d) how many employees have accessed support through the fund; and (e) what are the details of all reports or briefings regarding the status of ongoing initiatives through this funding, including the (i) title of the report, (ii) author, (iii) target audience, (iv) recommendations or conclusions arrived at?
Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is working to create a diverse and inclusive public service, free from racism, harassment and discrimination, where everyone has a sense of belonging. Budget 2022 proposed $3.7 million over four years, and Budget 2023 proposed to provide a further $45.9 million over three years, starting in 2023-24, to the Treasury Board Secretariat to create a Mental Health Fund for Black public servants and establish dedicated career development programs, including to prepare Black public service leaders for executive positions.
With regard to (a), Budget 2022 committed $3.7 million over four years for a Black-led engagement, design, and implementation of a Mental Health Fund for Black federal public servants. In 2022-23, the Treasury Board Secretariat accessed $1.1 million of the $3.7 million and will access the remaining $2.6 million starting in 2023-24. Of the $1.1 million that was accessed, $787,207 was spent.
With regard to (b), during the first phase of work, the Treasury Board Secretariat focused on developing an action plan for Black employees in the public service, working with Black employee networks. The Treasury Board Secretariat hired several Black employees on temporary assignments from several departments on secondment to develop and design proposals for a mental health fund for Black employees and dedicated career development programs. This included hiring 5.5 full-time equivalents using the $1.1 million from Budget 2022. That work resulted in new Budget 2023 commitments. A total of 5.5 full-time equivalents, or 11 employees, were hired in 2022 to accomplish this work. When the work was done, the secondments were ended, and the employees returned to their organizations.
With regard to (c), the second phase of work is underway to meet the Budget commitments and it will build on the foundational work started in phase one, including taking stock of existing programs, consultations with employee and subject matter experts. A dedicated team will be established to design, develop and implement programs that support the mental health and career development of Black public servants. The Treasury Board Secretariat plans to re-engage with Black employee networks and more broadly, consult Black employees in the public service to ensure that the initiatives developed will respond to their needs. The Treasury Board Secretariat is also working with partners, such as Health Canada, which delivers the Employee Assistance Program, and the Canada School of Public Service, which offers a suite of leadership development programming for leaders at all levels. We will build upon what exists and develop new programming to meet the needs of Black employees. Experts from the Black community will be engaged throughout this process.
With regard to (d), Budget 2022 committed $3.7 million over four years to support the Black-led engagement, design, and implementation phase of the Mental Health Fund. The funding was not intended to provide direct support to public servants. The work completed in 2022-2023 led to the Budget 2023 commitment of $45.9 million over three years, starting in 2023-24. This funding will provide direct support to employees for mental health and career development.
With regard to (e), following Parliament’s approval of Budget 2023, the Treasury Board Secretariat began the work to deliver on the Budget 2023 commitment. More information on the Mental Health Fund initiatives will be made available once they are designed and launched.
Question No. 1624—Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the handling of cases and claims pursuant to the Black Class Action Lawsuit launched in December 2020: how much has been spent by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General in legal fees and court fees in their requests to dismiss the lawsuit?
Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice undertook a preliminary search to determine what information would fall within the scope of the question and the time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. Producing and validating a response to this question would require a manual collection and careful analysis of individual transactions that is not possible in the time allotted, and which cannot be completed with the precision and detail necessary to ensure a complete and accurate response.
Although it is not possible to provide a response to the specific question posed, the Department of Justice can provide a summary of the total legal costs to respond to this class action, which includes but is not limited to legal services to support the preservation of records covering 99 departments and agencies, the motion for certification, the motion to strike, examinations, as well as various other steps required of Canada in the context of the litigation. To the extent that the information is, or may be, protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.
The total actual and notional legal costs associated with the Black Class Action, the Thompson lawsuit, amount to approximately $7.85 million. This amount covers the costs associated with all aspects of the litigation. The services targeted here are litigation services as well as litigation support services. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs represent file related legal disbursements and legal agent fees, as the case may be. The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information contained in Department of Justice systems, as of July 5, 2023.
Question No. 1625—Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to statistics recorded by Health Canada pertaining to its Medical Assistance in Dying Program (MAID), for the year 2022: (a) how many Canadians have made a request for MAID, broken down by those for whom natural death is reasonably foreseeable and those for whom natural death is not reasonably foreseeable; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory; (c) what is the breakdown by age of those who have requested MAID; (d) of the requests in (a), how many were (i) granted, (ii) denied; and (e) what is the breakdown by age of those whose request for MAID were (i) granted, (ii) denied?
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, data for the year 2022 will become available in fall 2023 and can be provided upon request at that time. In the meantime, we are pleased to present data for 2021 below. More information can be found in the “Third Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying”.
In response to (a), there were 12,286 written requests for medical assistance in dying, or MAID, in 2021. Of the total number of MAID provisions, or 10,064 individuals, 2.2%, or 219 individuals, were individuals whose natural deaths were not reasonably foreseeable, or non-RFND, with the remainder of provisions, or 9,845 individuals, or 97.8%, being individuals whose deaths were reasonably foreseeable. Data does not support the calculation of the number of requests not ending in a MAID provision by RFND vs non-RFND status.
In response to (b), the breakdown of MAID requests and outcomes by jurisdiction is provided in Table 7.1 from the “Third Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying”. Due to small numbers, some data have been suppressed to protect confidentiality. The majority of written requests, or 9,950 requests, or 81%, resulted in the administration of MAID based on reports received. The remaining 2,336 requests, or 19%, resulted in an outcome other than MAID: 231 individuals withdrew their request, or 1.9% of written requests; 487 individuals were deemed ineligible, or 4% of written requests; and 1,618 individuals died prior to receiving MAID, or 13.2% of written requests. These details are found in Annex A of the report.
In response to (c), the average age at the time MAID was provided in 2021 was 76.3. The breakdown by age of individuals who received MAID is as follows: 139 individuals aged 18 to 45, 353 aged 46 to 55, 1,165 aged 56 to 64, 1,462 aged 65 to 70, 1,572 aged 71 to 75, 1,621 aged 76 to 80, 1,364 aged 81 to 85, 1,200 aged 86 to 90, and 1,074 aged 91 or older.
The average age for outcomes not ending in MAID is 76.5 for ineligible cases, 75.4 for cases that were withdrawn, and 73.7 for patients who died. The data does not support the calculation of the age range of individuals who did not receive MAID.
In response to (d), and as per the response in answer (b) above and in Table 7.1 from the “Third Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying”, of the 12,286 written requests for MAID in 2021, 9,950, or 81%, resulted in the administration of MAID based on reports received, and 487 individuals were deemed ineligible, or 4% of written requests. In addition to these 487 individuals, of the 2,336 requests, or 19%, that resulted in an outcome other than MAID, 231 individuals withdrew their request, or 1.9% of written requests, and 1,618 individuals died prior to receiving MAID, or 13.2% of written requests.
In response to (e), the breakdown by age of individuals who received MAID is provided in part (c). The data does not support the calculation of the age range of individuals who did not receive MAID.
Question No. 1630—Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to funding from FinDev Canada for CASEIF IV, a regional private equity fund managed by LaFise Group in Central America and the Caribbean: (a) how does FinDev track the specific companies and projects that CASEIF IV and similar financial intermediaries fund with FinDev’s contribution; (b) how do CASEIF IV and similar financial intermediaries report to FinDev about the results of the end-use of their funds; (c) what projects and companies does FinDev fund through CASEIF IV; (d) how does FinDev vote, recommend, or advise the administrators of the CASEIF IV about how FinDev wants its contributions used; (e) how does FinDev follow up to ensure that its requests are respected; and (f) to what extent have they been respected to date?
Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), funds like CASEIF IV submit drawdown requests to all the Limited Partners specifying the application of funds including details on the portfolio companies that will be supported with the funding request. Application of funds are allocated based on the drawdown request. CASEIF IV and other similar financial intermediaries provide quarterly and annual reporting that includes portfolio updates, Financial Statements and a Capital Account Statement with the value attributable to each Limited Partner.
With regard to (b), CASEIF IV and other similar financial intermediaries provide quarterly and annual reporting that includes portfolio updates, Financial Statements and a Capital Account Statement with the value attributable to each Limited Partner.
With regard to (c), CASEIF IV is a generalist growth equity fund for small and medium sized enterprises in Central America, Panama, Dominican Republic and Colombia. CASEIF IV supports companies within key target sectors, namely the agribusiness value chain, renewable energy (up to 25MW generation), food and beverages processing, manufacturing, education and IT, that promote development and fight poverty by enhancing sustainable growth in alignment with FinDev Canada’s development impact goals. As of today, the CASEIF IV investment portfolio consists of two entities, a loan to a retail company and an equity investment in a food and beverage processing company.
With regard to (d), in accordance with FinDev Canada’s Development Impact Framework, eligible transactions are assessed for their current and potential development impact on women’s economic empowerment, climate action and local market development. Contributions from FinDev Canada and other Limited Partners towards investments administered by CASEIF IV are governed by a Limited Partners Agreement (LPA) that includes an Investment Policy with each of the Limited Partners participating pro rata in each of the underlying investments unless a predefined opt out criteria is communicated upfront.
Compliance with the LPA and other Fund Documents are monitored via the quarterly and annual reporting and compliance undertakings provided with each drawdown request. The Limited Partners Advisory Committee meets at least annually or more frequent when required for decisions that required Advisory Committee approval. Deviations from the Investment Policy requires Advisory Committee approval. As a limited liability partner, FinDev Canada does not participate in the management of the Fund.
With regard to (e), FinDev follows up to ensure that its requests are respected through review of quarterly and annual reporting, quarterly valuation review, monitoring reports, request for additional information if required.
With regard to (f), CASEIF IV is in good standing with all requirements having been respected to date.
Question No. 1634—Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and international students, broken down by year the international student arrived in Canada, for each of the last five years: (a) how many times was IRCC notified that the student was changing the designated learning institution; and (b) of the changes in (a), in how many instances did IRCC receive notice within (i) one week, (ii) 30 days, (iii) 90 days, (iv) six months, (v) one year, of the student arriving in Canada?
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when students change institutions, they are to report it through their MyAccount profile. This data, however, is embedded within the student’s Global Case Management System case file in such a way that it is not possible to extract for reporting purposes within the timeframe of a written question.
Question No. 1638—Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to government advertising being flagged for being partisan, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all ads which were flagged, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of advertisement, (iii) subject matter, (iv) description of the content, (v) government response to the flag, including whether the advertisement was edited or removed?
Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in 2016, the Government of Canada established a mandatory non-partisan external review process as part of a commitment to strengthen the oversight of government advertising. Ad Standards, the independent, not-for-profit, self-regulatory body that administers the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards was contracted to undertake this work.
At that time, advertising campaigns with budgets over $500,000 were subject to the process. In April 2020, the threshold for a mandatory review was reduced to $250,000. Departments may also submit campaigns that fall below the threshold for review.
All information on the advertising oversight mechanism, including the criteria used to evaluate advertising creatives and the two-stage review process, is publicly available on the Advertising oversight mechanism page: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/government-communications/advertising-oversight-mechanism.html.
All results of the reviews by Ad Standards are posted on the Review results and decisions page: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/government-communications/advertising-oversight-mechanism/review-results-decisions.html
The results are broken down by fiscal year, department, campaign name and details on modifications made following an initial review. As outlined on the Review results and decisions page, all flagged issues must be addressed, and the modified ad creatives must pass a final review from Ad Standards before being published or aired.
In addition to the non-partisan external review process, a complaints mechanism was established in 2020 to allow the public to flag any Government of Canada advertising that they perceive to be partisan. TBS is responsible for reviewing and reporting details of the complaints publicly on Canada.ca here: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/government-communications/advertising-oversight-mechanism/submitting-complaint-about-partisanship-in-gc-advertising.html
To date, TBS has reviewed a total of five complaints. The advertisements in question were deemed to meet the review criteria and no action was required.
Question No. 1640—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 (i) been resolved, (ii) not yet been resolved, to complete the ATR; (c) how many meetings or briefings have 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 26, 2022, and what are the details of each meeting or briefing, including the dates and names or titles of participants; (d) when was the last communication sent by the government to the Duck Lake IR#7 or the Okanagan Indian Band regarding the ATR and what is the summary of contents or other details about the last communication; and (e) what is the estimated timeline for the completion of the ATR?
Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, is concerned, the response to part (a) is that ISC continues to support the Okanagan Indian Band with the Addition to Reserve of the former Canadian National Rail corridor lands bisecting Duck Lake Indian Reserve No. 7. Canadian National Rail is currently the registered owner of the lands in fee simple and Canada has previously provided Canadian National Rail with a draft Agreement of Purchase and Sale to support the transfer of lands to Canada for the use and benefit of the Band. Negotiations around the Purchase and Sale Agreement are ongoing between Canadian National Rail, Okanagan Indian Band and Canada.
With regard to (i) of part (b), since the parties are in confidential negotiations on terms of land instruments such as permits under the Indian Act, it is not appropriate for the department to comment.
With regard to (ii) of part (b), 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. Okanagan Indian Band has taken the lead on these negotiations and has the support of legal and technical experts working to satisfy Additions to Reserve requirements. Canada has offered to support the Band with their negotiations and has assisted with providing template documents.
With regard to (c), there have been no meetings or briefings on this project with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or the Minister of ISC since November 26, 2022. At their request, Okanagan Indian Band has been leading these discussions with support from ISC Meetings occur approximately every six weeks, the last meeting occurring on May 16, 2023, with regular communication occurring between ISC and Okanagan Indian Band between meetings. Okanagan Indian Band is aware that ISC officials are available to meet at any time to progress this addition to reserve.
With regard to (d), the last communication between ISC and Okanagan Indian Band regarding the Addition to Reserve was sent on June 15, 2023. The email communication was regarding natural gas and electrical distribution permits. The permits are currently being drafted by respective legal counsels of the third-party interest holders, Canada, and Okanagan Indian Band as a requirement of the Additions to Reserve process.
With regard to (e), it is difficult to estimate timelines for completion as completion of the Addition to Reserve is subject to the readiness and willingness of third-party interest holders to terminate or negotiate and execute federal replacement interests with Okanagan Indian Band. This is an ISC priority file and the department continues to work in collaboration with Okanagan Indian Band to complete the Additions to Reserve. The estimated timeline for this submission is within the second quarter of 2023-2024, however, this timeline is dependent on the timely and successful execution of the utility agreements. Once this former railway line can be formally confirmed as added to Duck Lake Indian Reserve No. 7, it will be Okanagan Indian Band’s discretion on how the land will be used.
Question No. 1646—Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s 2022 Business Accelerators and Incubators Performance Measurement Framework Survey: (a) how many accelerators and incubators (i) were invited to respond, (ii) responded; (b) for each respondent in (a), what were their responses to questions in Part A of the survey, broken down by question; (c) how many companies (i) were invited to respond, (ii) responded; and (d) for each respondent in (c), what were their responses to questions in Part B of the survey, broken down by question?
Hon. Rechie Valdez (Minister of Small Business, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (i) of part (a), business accelerators and incubators, or BAIs, are organizations that provide business support and advisory services to start-ups. The Business Accelerator and Incubator Performance Measurement Framework, or BAI PMF, was co-created by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, and the BAI community and, since 2020, it is delivered in partnership with the Canada Accelerator Incubator Network, or CAIN, and the Mouvement des accélérateurs d'innovation du Québec, or MAIN. The survey is composed of a part A and a part B. Part A of the survey is intended to be filled out by the BAI, while part B of the survey is meant for the companies supported by that BAI. A single BAI could support anywhere from just a handful to thousands of companies per year. For each BAI participant, there will be more than one company supported. Part A of the survey represents the BAI, while Part B represents the companies supported by the BAI. CAIN and MAIN promote this project and invite the participation from their networks and the wider BAI community to participate to the survey. CAIN’s community includes more that 125 BAIs and MAIN’s network consists of 167 organizations ranging from BAIs, universities and researchers, municipalities, and investors. The exact number of BAIs invited to respond to the 2022 survey is unknown.
With regard to (ii) of part (a), 20 BAIs responded to the survey in 2018, increasing to 31 in 2019, 28 in 2020, and 33 in 2021. The BAI PMF collects survey data for the previous calendar year, that is to say data collected in 2018 was for companies receiving BAI programming in 2017. The 2022 survey data has been submitted to Statistics Canada for analysis.
With regard to (b), ISED does not have the 2022 list of BAI participants yet. As per project parameters, identifiable micro-data, i.e. the response provided by each BAI and company to each question, will be available only to Statistics Canada researchers and will be governed by strict confidentiality measures. As a general rule, public reports assessing the economic impact of BAIs in Canada will only include aggregated descriptive statistics, and only in cases in which there are sufficient observations to maintain firm level confidentiality. ISED does not have permission to share survey data publicly. Further details are available online at https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/sme-research-statistics/en/business-accelerators-and-incubators/bai-performance-measurement-framework/2019-bai-performance-measurement-framework-20#Toc4579868.
With regard to (i) of part (c), ISED does not have that information. Each BAI participant is responsible for selecting which companies to survey and for implementing the survey.
With regard to (ii) of part (c), the number of companies per year reflected in the analysis are: 539 companies in 2018, 2,461 in 2019, 2,116 for 2020, and 1,877 in 2021. The 2022 survey data has been submitted to Statistics Canada for analysis.
With regard to (d), ISED does not have that information. As per project parameters, identifiable micro-data will be available only to Statistics Canada researchers and will be governed by strict confidentiality measures. As a general rule, public reports assessing the economic impact of BAIs in Canada will only include aggregated descriptive statistics, and only in cases in which there are sufficient observations to maintain firm level confidentiality. ISED does not have permission to share survey data publicly. Further details are available online at https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/sme-research-statistics/en/business-accelerators-and-incubators/bai-performance-measurement-framework/2019-bai-performance-measurement-framework-20#Toc4579868.
Question No. 1653—Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the targets in the Food Policy for Canada: (a) does the government believe that keeping the price of food low will help ensure Canadians have access to food and contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of ending hunger by 2030; (b) what efforts has the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council made to ensure that affordability is included and measured as a target of the Food Policy for Canada; and (c) what are the details of all community-based initiatives that have been invested in, including the (i) name of the project, (ii) amount of funding received, (iii) expected outcomes?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada recognizes that rising inflation is challenging many Canadians to meet their essential needs, including accessing food.
The Food Policy for Canada has a suite of measures to strengthen food systems and improve Canadians’ food security through an initial investment of $134.4 million, and an additional $10 million in Budget 2023 for community-led infrastructure projects to promote access to nutritious food.
The Government of Canada is working to make life more affordable for Canadians and contributing to the United Nations Sustainable Develop Goal of ending hunger by 2030. The government delivered important improvements to a range of income supports, such as the Canada Child Benefit, old age security, guaranteed income supplement, and tax credits for low-income workers and their families. The 2023 federal budget included a new, one-time Grocery Rebate to offer inflation relief to lower-income families which was dispersed on July 5, 2023.
With regard to (b), after the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council was established in 2021, a working group was assembled to make recommendations to the Minister related to reducing food insecurity in Canada. The working group presented 3 recommendations: (1) Set a target to reduce food insecurity by 50% by 2030, based on the Canadian Income Survey's 2019 baseline. Further, seek to eliminate severe food insecurity. (2) Alleviate the disproportionate impact of food insecurity on Black and Indigenous people; and (3) Enhance measurement of food insecurity in Canada noting the comprehensive report that was submitted with recommendations on measurement and reporting.
With regard to (c), the Government of Canada has invested significantly into community-based initiatives to support Canada’s food systems. Under the Food Policy for Canada, the 5 year Local Food Infrastructure Fund, or LFIF, is designed to improve access to safe, nutritious, and culturally diverse food. It provides support to community-based, not-for-profit organizations to reduce food insecurity by establishing and/or strengthening local food systems.
A comprehensive accounting of projects funded under the Local Food Infrastructure Fund, including the name of the recipient, the agreement number and duration, a brief project description, the funding amount and location of the recipient are listed as part of the Open Government website.
For example, in 2022, Cold Lake First Nations received just over $200,000 Canadian to create a food system. The objective of this project is to purchase food processing equipment, cold and dry storage, fish harvesting equipment, food forest, garden beds with irrigation and kitchen upgrades.
Question No. 1659—Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the government’s research and analysis on policies and programs that could reduce the poverty rate for children, since fiscal year 2014-15: (a) what reports, studies, or analyses have been done on implementing a guaranteed livable income; (b) of the reports in (a), what studies incorporated the Canada Emergency Response Benefit or the Canada Recovery Benefit; (c) what were the conclusions of each report listed in (b); and (d) which jurisdictions were included in the government’s review of existing basic income projects to help reduce child poverty?
Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, monitors basic income research and reports, as well as the outcomes of basic income pilots in Canada and internationally. ESDC conducts ongoing policy analysis of basic income in a Canadian context and has identified many considerations including benefit level and cost, program design and interaction with existing benefits, implementation and interaction with provincial/territorial programming, and impact on the labour market. Recent analyses on basic income have not incorporated consideration of the precise parameters and impacts of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit or the Canada Recovery Benefit.
With regard to (c), some of the Government’s programs have many features of a partial basic income. This includes the Canada Child Benefit for families and the Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors. Moreover, if a provincial or territorial government decides to proceed with a basic income pilot, ESDC would be pleased to share federal-level administrative, survey, and tax data that could support program design and evaluation.
For proactive disclosure purposes, a Question Period note on basic income is available at https://search.open.canada.ca/qpnotes/record/esdc-edsc,GouldJan2022-011
With regard to (d), ESDC’s review of existing and past basic income projects includes domestic projects in Ontario and Manitoba and international projects in Finland, the Netherlands, the United States and Spain.
For proactive disclosure purposes, a HUMA Committee binder for the Minister of Seniors dated May 25, 2021, on the impact of COVID-19 on seniors, including the topic of basic income, is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/reports/committe-binders/may-25-minister.html
Question No. 1660—Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the timeline of the government’s negotiations concerning the NextStar Energy battery plant in Windsor, Ontario: (a) on what date did the government enter into negotiations with Stellantis to ensure this facility would provide good paying jobs to workers; (b) what are the details of all agreements reached between Stellantis and the government that were made prior to May 15, 2023, including the (i) date the agreement was made, (ii) obligations of the government, (iii) document title or reference number, if the agreement was in writing; and (c) did the government have an agreement in writing with Stellantis prior to August 16, 2022?
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a). there are two agreements currently in place with respect to the NextStar Energy battery plant in Windsor, Ontario. The first is the Contribution Agreement with NextStar for the construction of the plant under the Strategic Innovation Fund, or SIF, and the second is a Special Contribution Agreement, which was negotiated as part of the Government of Canada’s response to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA.
The SIF received approval to enter formal negotiations of the Term Sheet on February 26, 2022, while negotiations with respect to Canada’s response to the IRA were initiated after a letter was sent to the company on November 25, 2022.
The SIF received approval to finalize the Contribution Agreement on July 22, 2022, and approval to finalize the Special Contribution Agreement was received on June 29, 2023.
With regard to (i) of part (b), NextStar’s SIF Contribution Agreement was executed on September 30, 2022. With respect to the Government’s response to the IRA, no agreement had been reached prior to May 15, 2023. Since this time, the Special Contribution Agreement with NextStar was executed on July 5, 2023.
With regard to (ii) of part (b), the obligations of the government under the SIF can be found on the Projects: Strategic Innovation Fund site. The site provides an overview of all announced and active SIF projects.
Information with respect to the government’s obligations under the Special Contribution Agreement was released in a statement from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The statement can be found on the site Canada and Ontario Establish An Auto Pact to Secure Stellantis-LGES and Volkswagen deals.
With regard to (iii) of part (b), the document title of the SIF agreement is: NextStar Contribution Agreement. With respect to the response to the IRA the document title is: Special Contribution Agreement for Lithium Ion Battery Manufacturing in Canada.
With regard to (c), as previously indicated, NextStar’s Contribution Agreement with SIF was executed on September 30, 2022. The work phase of the Stellantis project dates back to August 16, 2021, meaning the recipient is able to submit claims for eligible supported costs dating back to August 16, 2021.
With respect to Canada’s response to the IRA, the Government of Canada did not have an agreement in writing with Stellantis prior to August 16, 2022.
Question No. 1661—Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's regulations concerning amortizations periods for new mortgages: (a) what reports or analyses has the government conducted concerning increasing the amortization period up to 30 years; (b) what recommendations did the reports in (a) make; (c) does the government believe that increasing amortization periods to 30 years would make buying a new home more affordable; and (d) does the government intend to introduce legislative changes to increase amortization periods?
Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, changes concerning amortization periods for insured mortgages falls under the purview of the Minister of Finance.
Question No. 1664—Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard’s Coastal Marine Response Network, broken down by coastal region: (a) what is the total number of coastal marine response teams ready to respond to incidents; and (b) what are the details of each team in (a), including the (i) location, (ii) number of individuals employed, (iii) funding provided by the government for equipment acquisition?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canadian Coast Guard’s Coastal Marine Response Network, broken down by coastal region, with regard to (a), the Coastal Marine Response Team initiative is in its planning stage only so there are not yet any teams established and ready to respond to incidents. Indigenous and coastal communities are being engaged to determine their interest in co-developing this community response initiative. A pilot project that is a precursor to the Coastal Marine Response Team known as the Heiltsuk Marine Emergency Response Team, which is funded and supported as part of the Oceans Protection Plan renewal, is currently operating, with 12 response personnel, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on the central coast of British Columbia in close collaboration with the Canadian Coast Guard. Coastal Marine Response Teams are anticipated to become operational beginning in 2025.
With regard to (b), as the initiative is in its planning stage there are no established teams, locations or individuals employed at this time. Nor has equipment been purchased through government funding.
Question No. 1669—Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the Black Entrepreneurship Program (BEP): (a) how many applicants applied to the BEP Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, since the program was launched; (b) of the $160 million allocated to the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, (i) how much has been delivered to the successful applicants, (ii) what is the average loan amount; and (c) under the $92 million approved funding for the Ecosystem Fund component of the BEP, what metrics will be used to determine if program goals were met?
Hon. Rechie Valdez (Minister of Small Business, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Black Entrepreneurship Program, or BEP, builds on the broader Government of Canada commitment to address systemic barriers and racism against Black Canadians. The three pillars of the BEP were developed in consultation with Black Canadian communities to reflect the realities and needs of Black Canadians and is managed by Black led organizations to create stronger economic opportunities for Black Canadian business owners and entrepreneurs.
With regard to (a), the number of applicants that have submitted complete applications to the Black Entrepreneurship Program Loan Fund as at May 31, 2023 was 3,679.
With regard to (i) of part (b), the $160 million allocated to the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund is composed of two amounts: $30 million in Government funding through a contribution agreement with the Federation of African Canadian Economics, or FACE; and $130 million commitment of funds by the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, to the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund. The $130 million are BDC funds, not appropriations, that are allocated as required when loans are approved.
As at May 31, 2023, the total amount of loans disbursed was $27,623,585. Government and BDC funds are part of this total.
With regard to (i) of part (b), the average loan amount as at May 31, 2023 was $90,351.
With regard to (c), the following regional development agencies, or RDAs, are delivering the BEP Ecosystem Fund in their respective regions: the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA; the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, or CED-Q; the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, or FedNor; the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, or FedDev Ontario; Prairies Economic Development Canada, or PrairiesCan; and Pacific Economic Development Canada, or PacifiCan.
Several metrics will be used to determine the ecosystem fund’s performance, which will be measured annually. These may include the number and value of projects approved by the ecosystem fund; the growth in the number of clients served; and the number of under-represented groups supported by the ecosystem fund, such as women and youth. These metrics are in addition to RDAs’ robust due diligence requirements related to project management, finance and reporting, such as analyzing the project’s viability and conducting a thorough client evaluation. Overall results from the BEP Ecosystem Fund will be included in each RDA’s Departmental Results Framework and will contribute to their shared core responsibility to support economic development in each region of Canada.
Question No. 1670—Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy (WES): (a) how many applicants applied to the WES Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative; (b) of the $15 million allocated to the Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative in budget 2021, how much of the funding has been delivered to successful applicants; (c) how many women entrepreneurs have accessed capital under the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund since the program started in 2018; (d) of the $55 million allocated to the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund in budget 2021, how much of the funding has been delivered to successful applicants; (e) how many applicants applied to the WES Ecosystem Fund (i) during the first call (January 11 to March 15, 2022), (ii) during the second call (July 28 to September 26, 2022); (f) of the $25 million allocated to the WES Ecosystem Fund's first call, how much of the funding was delivered; and (g) of the $40 million allocated to WES Ecosystem's second call, how much of the funding was delivered?
Hon. Rechie Valdez (Minister of Small Business, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy, or WES, represents nearly $7 billion in investments and commitments from almost 20 different federal departments, agencies, and Crown corporations. This investment represents a “whole of government” approach to increasing women-owned businesses’ access to the financing, talent, networks, and expertise they need to start up, scale up, and access new markets. There are a number of initiatives under the strategy.
First launched through Budget 2018, the Government of Canada announced, in Budget 2021, new investments of $146.9 million over four years, starting in 2021-22, to further strengthen the WES. The new investments from Budget 2021 were used to create the Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative and the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, as well as provide further funding to the WES Ecosystem Fund.
With regard to (a), the Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative, which is a part of the WES, funds projects led by not-for-profit organizations to strengthen and build a more inclusive risk and venture capital environment for Canadian women.
Twenty-six applications were received under the Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative, and five recipients were announced on March 8, 2023: the National Angel Capital Organization, or NACO; the Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association, or CVCA; the Small Scale Food Processor Association; Social Venture Connection, or SVX; and Elevate Toronto. The news release can be found on the following site: Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development announces the next phase of the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy - Canada.ca.
With regard to (b), the Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative funding will be allocated and delivered over fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25.
With regard to (c), another component of the WES, the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, was announced on March 8, 2022, and provides loans of up to $50,000 to diverse women entrepreneurs. Following a competitive call for proposals, the following five organizations were selected as loan administrators: the Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation, Coralus, the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association, Evol, and the Women’s Enterprise Organizations of Canada. The news release can be found on the following site: Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development announces the next phase of the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy - Canada.ca.
As at March 31, 2023, 185 women entrepreneurs have received loans to help start or grow their businesses since the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund became available in 2022.
With regard to (d), loans totalling more than $4.6 million have been delivered as at March 31, 2023 through the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund.
With regard to (i) of part (e), first launched in 2018, the WES Ecosystem Fund, which is also a part of the WES, is designed to help not-for-profit, third-party organizations strengthen capacity within the entrepreneurship ecosystem and offer business support such as training, mentorship, and financial literacy for women entrepreneurs.
Budget 2018 provided the WES Ecosystem Fund with $85 million, and it supported 52 projects. Budget 2021 provided renewed funding of $65 million for the WES Ecosystem Fund, which was allocated through two separate calls for applications referred to as “the first call” and “the second call” respectively.
In 2022, under the first call of the WES Ecosystem Fund, 101 applications were received and 8 were funded. Recipients of funding were announced on March 8, 2023. The news release can be found on the following site: International Women’s Day 2023: Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development announces recipients of funding under the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy - Canada.ca.
With regard to (ii) of part (e), in 2022, under the second call of the WES Ecosystem Fund, 97 applications were received and 16 were funded. Recipients of funding were announced on March 8, 2023. The news release can be found on the following site: International Women’s Day 2023: Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development announces recipients of funding under the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy - Canada.ca.
With regard to (f), as at May 31, 2023, approximately $2.1 million of funding has been delivered to successful recipients under the first call of the WES Ecosystem Fund.
With regard to (g), the WES Ecosystem Fund funding for the second call will be allocated and delivered over fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25.
Question No. 1671—Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to Export Development Canada’s Canada account transactions to guarantee financing provided by commercial lenders to the Trans Mountain Corporation signed on April 20, 2022, March 24, 2023 and May 2, 2023, for each transaction: (a) was an assessment of the commercial viability of Trans Mountain Corporation completed prior to the guarantees being approved; (b) what evidence did the government rely on to complete this assessment; (c) what evidence did the Trans Mountain Corporation provide that it would be able to repay its commercial lenders; (d) what are the terms of the loan guarantees; and (e) if the Trans Mountain Corporation is unable to cover its debt to commercial lenders, what organizations within the government will be responsible for repayment?
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these transactions were made under the Canada Account. The Canada Account is used to support export transactions which Export Development Canada is unable to support, but which are determined by the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, in concurrence with the Minister of Finance, to be in Canada's national interest. This is usually due to a combination of risks, including the size of the transaction, market risks, Export Development Canada's country capacity, borrower risks, or the financing conditions. All Canada Account transactions are disclosed on the following website: https://www.edc.ca/en/about-us/corporate/disclosure/reporting-transactions/canada-account.html
Question No. 1677—Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the government halting activity with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): (a) was an initial risk analysis of the organization completed prior to Canada partaking in the activities of the bank pertaining to Chinese Communist Party (CCP) influence, and, if so, what were the findings; (b) were concerns regarding CCP infiltration or control within the bank raised from Canadian executives to any federal departments prior to Bob Pickard resigning his post at the bank, and, if so, how were these concerns addressed; (c) does the AIIB have access to sensitive business and personal documents pertaining to businesses and citizens in Canada; (d) who or what department is tasked with conducting a review of AIIB and when will the review be completed; (e) how much money has Canada provided to the AIIB; and (f) of the money in (e), how much does the government expect to get back from the AIIB, and by what date?
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have instructed the Department of Finance to conduct a review of the allegations raised and of Canada’s involvement in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This review is ongoing.
Question No. 1680—Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the hiring and training of border services officers for the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) across Canada: (a) how many new CBSA officers were hired and trained in Canada since 2012; and (b) how many are projected to be hired in the next five years with the construction of the new Gordie Howe Bridge?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the data was obtained using the CBSA's Corporate Administrative System, or CAS, and covers the period from January 1, 2012, to June 27, 2023.
With regard to (a), in 2012, 161 recruits became border services officers, or BSOs, and since the introduction of the Officer Induction Training Program, or OITP, the CBSA has trained 3,269 recruits. Therefore, the CBSA has had a total of 3,430 BSOs and BSO Trainees since 2012.
With regard to (b), the CBSA will be hiring approximately 260 BSOs to meet its staffing requirements at the Gordie Howe International Bridge.
Question No. 1686—Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the Pacific Salmon Strategic Initiative (PSSI) announced on June 8, 2021: (a) what is the breakdown of how the $647.1 million is allocated in budget 2021; and (b) what is the breakdown of how the $98.9 million in amortization is allocated to (i) conservation and stewardship, (ii) enhanced hatchery production, (iii) harvest transformation, (iv) integrated management and collaboration, (v) contracted services, (vi) grants and other non-repayable disbursements to non-government entities?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Pacific Salmon Strategic Initiative, or PSSI, announced on June 8, 2021, and with regard to (a), Budget 2021 announced $647.1 million over five years plus $98.9 million in amortization as the accrual budget to implement PSSI. The $647.1 million funding breakdown is as follows: $346.4 million for Vote 1, $26.2 million for Vote 5, and $274.5 million for Vote 10.
With regard to (b), the $98.9 million is the amount of amortization that remains related to the Vote 5 allocation provided to PSSI over a five-year period commencing in 2021-22. When added to the $26.2 million referenced above, the total Vote 5 allocation is $125.1 million, which is broken down by the following assets: $81.5 million for buildings; $21.2 million for leasehold improvements for buildings; $8.3 million for communications equipment; $7.3 million for trailers; $3.5 million for vehicles; $2.6 million for scientific and laboratory equipment; $600,000 for vessels, and $15,000 for trades support equipment.
Question No. 1691—Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the government’s calculations for nitrous oxide emissions associated with nitrogen fertilizer use: (a) what were the data sources the government based its calculations on for the current nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer use in Canada; (b) what data and emissions calculations did the government receive from each source in (a); (c) how did the government calculate the (i) total direct and indirect nitrous oxide emissions from the agricultural sector, each year from 2005 to 2020, (ii) sector’s share of national nitrous oxide emissions and percentage changes over time; and (d) what were the specific policy and scientific rationales for choosing a 30% reduction fertilizer emissions threshold?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the government’s calculations for nitrous oxide emissions associated with nitrogen fertilizer use are published in the National Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Report, which is accessible at https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.506002/publication.html.
With regard to (b), the government received data on fertilizer use, in agricultural markets each year, in metric tonnes of nitrogen, and at a provincial scale.
There are no known nationally representative statistics available to the government that track the quantity of nitrogen fertilizers applied on farms. As a result, the provincial fertilizer statistics are used as a proxy.
With regard to (i) of part (c), the government uses methodologies consistent with the 2006 guidelines from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, that use, for the most part, country-specific parameters derived from Canadian research as reported in the National GHG Inventory Report.
A detailed description of the methodology is available in Annex 3.4, section A3.4.5, in Part 2 of the 1990-2021 National Inventory Report. Nitrogen from organic and inorganic sources are distributed to the landscape according to the procedure described at the beginning of section A3.4.5.
Regarding direct emissions, the current approach is based on three Canadian scientific publications, namely Liang et al. 2020; Rochette et al. 2018; and Pelster et al. 2022, which summarize the research that has been carried out in Canada over the past 30 years. A base Emission Factor, or EF, for growing season and non-growing season nitrous oxide emissions is established for areas of Canada that have a unique combination of climate, landscape and soils, called ecodistricts considering multiple factors including the topography of the cropland, moisture regimes, precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, and soil texture, all of which influence how much nitrous oxide is emitted when fertilizer is applied. These base EFs are then further adjusted with factors to account for the nitrogen source, cropping system, tillage and irrigation, which are additional factors that relate to how farmers manage the land that further impact the amount of nitrous oxide that is emitted to the atmosphere.
As for indirect emissions, these are estimated from volatilization and redeposition of nitrogen, and leaching and runoff losses.
A country-specific method was used to estimate ammonia emissions from inorganic nitrogen application. This approach derives ammonia emission factors based on the type of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers, the degree of incorporation into soil, crop type and soil chemical properties.
For leaching and runoff losses, a modified IPCC Tier 1 methodology is used to estimate nitrous oxide emissions from leaching and runoff of inorganic and organic nitrogen fertilizers, and crop residue nitrogen from agricultural soils. The fraction of nitrogen leached from the soil is determined for each ecodistrict and varies from 0.05 to 0.3, depending on the climatic characteristics of the region.
More details on specific equations used in the direct and indirect emission calculations are published in the National Inventory Report Annex 3.4, ECCC, 2023.
With regard to (ii) of part (c), the agriculture sector’s share of emissions are calculated based on the results reported in the National GHG Inventory Report. The fraction is based on the quantity of emissions coming from the agricultural sector, which are reported in Chapter 6 of the National Inventory Report, relative to the total sum of all nitrous oxide emissions coming from all sectors in the inventory report.
In 2021, the agricultural sector emitted 54 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 8.1% of Canada’s total emissions, which are 670 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils were 19 megatonnes in 2021, making up 35% of the emissions from the agricultural sector. Nitrous oxide emissions increased from 15 megatonnes in 1990 to 23 megatonnes in 2021, representing an increase of 52%.
In 2021, nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, or 23 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, contributed to 75% of Canada’s total nitrous oxide emissions, or 30 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. The contribution of agricultural nitrous oxide to national nitrous oxide emissions rose from 43% in 1990 to 75% in 2021.
With regard to (d), 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 weighting various factors and characteristics, such as: ambitious, considering climate goals and international efforts; technically achievable, given that the technologies and know-how largely exist; economically feasible, given potential cost savings and increased yield through efficiency gains and better management; and scientifically defensible, given that it is supported by research findings relevant to Canadian context.
:
Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Question Nos. 1523, 1524, 1529, 1530, 1532, 1535, 1537 to 1542, 1544 to 1547, 1551 to 1561, 1563, 1564, 1566, 1567, 1569, 1573, 1574, 1577 to 1579, 1582, 1584 to 1586, 1589 to 1596, 1598 to 1601, 1604, 1606, 1608 to 1611, 1613 to 1615, 1616, 1620 to 1622, 1626 to 1629, 1631 to 1633, 1635 to 1637, 1639, 1641 to 1645, 1647 to 1652, 1654 to 1658, 1662, 1663, 1665 to 1668, 1672 to 1676, 1678, 1679, 1681 to 1685, 1687 to 1690, 1692 and 1693 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 1523—Mr. Mike Morrice:
With regard to Correctional Services Canada’s (CSC) expenditures to operate federal correctional institutions across Canada for the past 10 fiscal years: (a) what is the total amount spent to operate each correctional facility, broken down by facility, year, and CSC’s publicly reported expenditure categories (care and custody, correctional interventions, community supervision, internal services); (b) what is the total amount spent for each of the expenditures under the care and custody category (such as food, clothing, accommodation, mental health services, physical health care, etc.), broken down by facility and year; (c) what is the total amount spent for facility capital renovations, maintenance, upkeep, and repair to maintain or improve quality of living conditions for inmates, broken down by facility and year; (d) what is the total amount spent under each of the 10 distinct service categories comprising CSC’s publicly reported internal services category; and (e) what is the description of the expenditures accounted for under each of the 10 distinct service categories comprising CSC’s publicly reported internal services category?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1524—Mr. Mike Morrice:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation’s (CMHC) funding initiatives for preserving existing housing stock and building new housing, as well as CMHC’s connections to both real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other private institutional investors: (a) have REITs or other private institutional investors benefited from CMHC funding in the past 10 fiscal years; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what is the total amount of (i) loans, (ii) grants, (iii) any other form of financial support provided to each REIT or other private institutional investor, broken down by recipient's name, type (REIT or other private institutional investor), amount received, year, and jurisdiction; (c) does the CMHC have agreements already in place to provide funding to REITs or other private institutional investors in the current fiscal year or future fiscal years; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what is the total amount of (i) loans, (ii) grants, (iii) any other form of financial support to be provided in the current and future fiscal years to each REIT or other private institutional investor, broken down by recipient's name, type (REIT or other private institutional investor), amount to be received, year, and jurisdiction; (e) does the CMHC have internal policies, directives, standards or guidelines on the (i) role of the CMHC in providing financial support to REITs or other private institutional investors, (ii) conditions under which REITs or other private institutional investors would or would not receive CMHC administered funding; and (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what are the details of such documents?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1529—Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the Minister of Veterans Affairs: (a) when did the minister become aware of the government's plan to remove the images of the Vimy Ridge Memorial and Billy Bishop from the Canadian passport; and (b) did the minister do anything to stop the removal of these images, and, if so, what specific action did the minister take?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1530—Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to projects funded by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) in the Asia-Pacific region for human rights or humanitarian issues, since 2016: (a) what are the details of all such projects, including the (i) location, (ii) funding recipient, (iii) detailed project description, (iv) organization overseeing the project, (v) amount of funding provided by GAC, (vi) start date, (vii) end date?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1532—Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to monitoring activities of the spawning biomass of American lobster by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, broken down by year since 2018: (a) what was the estimated size of the biomass in total, broken down by each lobster fishing area; and (b) for each year's data in (a), on what date and by using what scientific methods or sources was the data obtained?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1535—Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to projects funded by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) in Africa for human rights or humanitarian issues since 2016: what are the details of all such projects, including the (i) location, (ii) funding recipient, (iii) detailed project description, (iv) organization overseeing the project, (v) amount of funding provided by GAC, (vi) start date, (vii) end date?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1537—Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) Assessment and Revenue Management (CARM) project: (a) what assessments has CBSA made in relation to delays and disruptions that may be caused while implementing CARM; (b) what specific measures, if any, is CBSA taking to ensure that the implementation of CARM does not cause any delays or disruptions; (c) has the government analyzed the impact of the new requirement for importers to obtain surety bonds as part of CARM, and, if so, what were the findings, including the impact of the requirement on smaller importers versus larger ones; (d) has the government considered whether or not the surety market would supply smaller importers with the newly required bonds, and, if so, what were the findings; (e) if the answer to (d) is negative, was this an error or oversight on the government's part when developing the project; (f) what is the current timeline for when each measure required by CARM will be implemented; and (g) what are the details of all memorandums and briefing notes about CARM that were sent from or received by CBSA or Public Safety Canada, including the Office of the Minister of Public Safety, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary of contents, (vi) type of document?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1538—Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the commitment of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in January of 2022 to eliminate backlogs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic by the end of the 2022 calendar year: (a) why was this commitment not fulfilled; (b) what are the current backlogs, broken down by immigration stream or program; and (c) when will the backlogs be eliminated?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1539—Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the government's administration of section 42.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (a) how many applications have been received under this section, since 2020, broken down by year; and (b) what is the status of each application in (a), including the (i) date the application was received, (ii) date a decision was made, (iii) decision, (iv) number of days between the date the application was received and the date a decision was made?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1540—Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to deportation letters sent out by the government, broken down by year since January 1, 2016: (a) how many individuals were sent deportation letters by the government; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many (i) self-deported or left the country voluntarily, (ii) were deported by officers or enforcement agents, (iii) currently remain in Canada?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1541—Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to immigration applications for individuals who have been sponsored by their spouse or partner, since January 1, 2016, broken down by the year the application was received: (a) how many applications were received; (b) how many applications were (i) granted, (ii) denied, (iii) are still awaiting a decision; (c) how many applications were investigated for suspected fake or fraudulent marriages or partnerships; (d) of the applications in (c), how many of the marriages or partnerships were deemed to be (i) legitimate, (ii) fake or fraudulent; and (e) were there any charges or other enforcement actions taken against any of the individuals whose sponsorship application involved a fake or fraudulent marriage, and, if so, how many individuals faced enforcement action, in total, and broken down by type of enforcement action?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1542—Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to federal Crown land which has been sold or donated for the purpose of building housing since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all such transactions, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) size of the land involved, (iii) sale price, if applicable, (iv) entity the land was sold or transferred to, (v) location, (vi) number of houses or units expected to be built on the land, (vii) number of houses or units built on the land to date, if known; and (b) what was the total square area of land transferred in (a), broken down by year?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1544—Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to Transport Canada (TC), the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), and air travel: (a) what is the role of (i) TC, (ii) CTA, in ensuring that air traffic delays are correctly reported to air traffic control towers; (b) for each of the last five years, how many and what percentage of total flight delays were reported due to (i) mechanical issues, (ii) air traffic congestion, (iii) weather conditions, (iv) other issues, if known; (c) what actions, if any, have been taken by either TC or the CTA, since January 1, 2022, to (i) reduce flight delays, (ii) increase flight delay transparency, (iii) invest in improved flight reporting technologies; (d) how does TC ensure the (i) safe, (ii) efficient, (iii) transparent, reporting of flight information between air traffic controllers and Nav Canada; (e) what measures has TC implemented to improve coordination and communication between air traffic controllers and airlines when flight delays are caused by (i) adverse weather conditions, (ii) equipment failures, (iii) labour shortages, (iv) labour disputes; (f) how does TC hold Nav Canada accountable when flight delays, runway safety or shortages impact safety and passenger experience; and (g) what steps has the CTA taken to ensure compliance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations and international aviation regulations in reporting of flight delays caused by (i) runway maintenance, (ii) air traffic congestion, (iii) security incidents at airports?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1545—Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to COVID-19 vaccine safety and the messaging on the government's webpage titled "Vaccination and pregnancy: COVID-19": (a) what is the scientific basis for government officials' statements that COVID-19 vaccines are categorically safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women; (b) did Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), or the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) identify a need for observational studies regarding potential vaccine-related health outcomes in breastfed infants and toddlers as a result of exposure to vaccinated mothers or their breastmilk to detect safety signals of concern, and implement necessary precautions, and, if so, what are the details of all such studies, including those that the government relied on, including, for each (i) who conducted the study, (ii) the methodology, (iii) the findings; (c) if the answer to (b) is none, why were no such studies required; (d) did HC, PHAC, or NACI study or review studies on the impact of the vaccines on menstrual cycles, and, if so, what conclusions or estimates were reached in relation to the number and percentage of recipients whose cycles were impacted; (e) what is HC's response to the peer-reviewed article by Thorp & Associates, titled "COVID-19 Vaccines: The Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes and Menstrual Function", and what changes, if any, were made to public vaccine guidance or advice as a result of the study's findings; and (f) does the government acknowledge that for certain individuals or age ranges, such as newborns, the risks associated with the vaccine outweigh the potential benefits and, if so, for which individuals does the government recognize that this situation may apply?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1546—Mr. Sébastien Lemire:
With regard to the expenditures of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions, for fiscal years 2020–21 and 2021–22, broken down by administrative region and electoral district in Quebec: (a) what is the total amount for each region for these fiscal years; and (b) what is the detailed breakdown of the amounts by program?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1547—Mr. Sébastien Lemire:
With regard to the automobile and manufacturing industry in Canada: (a) did the government work with global automobile or manufacturing businesses to boost existing investments in the automobile sector or to attract new investments in new factories, new products, including electric vehicles and batteries, or new jobs, in each province since 2022; (b) did the government consider making investments in new chemical plants to process critical and strategic minerals, and, if so, what types of plants and which municipal locations were considered; and (c) did existing battery recycling plants receive funding, and, if so, (i) in which year, (ii) for which plant, (iii) in what amount, (iv) through which program?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1551—Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe:
With regard to the export of military equipment and technology and the repression of widespread protests following the arrest and replacement of former president Pedro Castillo: (a) since December 2022, have officials from the Export Controls Division of Global Affairs Canada (GAC) undertaken an independent review to determine whether Peruvian authorities used any Canadian military equipment, including light armoured vehicles, crowd-control equipment and “less-lethal” equipment, in the crackdowns, and, if so, what were the findings of this review; (b) have Canadian authorities contacted their Peruvian counterparts to determine whether military equipment made in Canada was used in the violence, and, if so, what were their findings; (c) was authorization granted for the export of Canadian military equipment to end users involved in the violence; (d) have Canadian officials put the authorization of arms exports to Peru on hold; (e) has the government investigated what Canadian-sourced arms were used for in Peru prior to December 2022; (f) what are the details of the types of military equipment that have been authorized for export to Peruvian authorities since 2014, building on the information previously provided by GAC; and (g) what criteria, protocols or other considerations were taken into account in 2020 when the minister at that time decided to suspend arms exports to Belarus?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1552—Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe:
With regard to the approval rate of francophone foreign students: (a) what is the number of study permit applications (excluding applications for extensions) processed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023 (most recent data), and broken down by country of residence; and (b) on what figures and according to what calculation did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship base her claim on May 18, 2023, that the “approval rate for francophone students from Africa went from 27 percent in 2022 to 35 percent this year”?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1553—Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to expenditures at Health Canada, broken down by fiscal year for 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23: (a) what was the total value of all expenditures under object code 0301 (advertising services); and (b) what was the total value of all expenditures under object code 04 (professional and special services)?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1554—Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to government funding related to drug supply and treatment: (a) what was the total amount spent by the government on providing "safer supply" drugs in the 2022-23 fiscal year; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory; (c) what was the total amount spent by the government on opioid agonist therapy in the 2022-23 fiscal year; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by province or territory?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1555—Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to documents sent between the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and the Department of Canadian Heritage, including the minister's office, about Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: what are the details of all such documents, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipients, (iv) type of document, (v) title, (vi) subject matter, (vii) summary of contents?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1556—Mr. Rob Morrison:
With regard to expenditures related to the Cabinet retreat which took place in Vancouver from September 6 to 8, 2022: (a) what are the total expenditures related to the retreat; (b) what is the breakdown of the expenditures by type of expense (accommodation, hospitality, audio-visual, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all expenditures in excess of $1,000, including, for each, the (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) description of the goods or services provided?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1557—Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to expenditures by the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General (OSGG): (a) what was the total amount spent on dry cleaning and laundry services by the OSGG in each of the last five fiscal years; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of item (furniture, curtains, personal clothing, etc.) and type of service (dry cleaning, traditional laundry, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all expenditures over $1,000 that were made under code 0819 (Non-professional personal service contracts not elsewhere specified), since January 2, 2018, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of the goods or services?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1558—Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to Canada Post: (a) is Canada Post planning on restricting the use of polybags in any way, and, if so, how and what is the timeline for any future action; (b) since 2016, has Canada Post received any correspondence from any minister, exempt staff, or government official related to polybags, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of the contents, (vii) type of communication; (c) since 2016, has Canada Post received any directives from the government that is causing it to prohibit the usage of polybags, and, if so, what was the directive and on what date was it received; and (d) what action, if any, will the government take to ensure that Canadian packers are not put at a competitive disadvantage compared to American packers as a result of Canadian restrictions on polybags?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1559—Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to the disposal of fish and seafood seized by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) during the 2022 calendar year: (a) what are the DFO's policies related to the disposal of seized fish and seafood; (b) what are the details for each seizure, including, for instance, the (i) manner of disposal, (ii) quantity, (iii) species or type of seafood, (iv) recipient, if applicable; (c) of the items that were disposed of, how much was donated to local food banks or charities and what is the breakdown of the quantity each food bank or charity received; and (d) what are the DFO's policies in relation to DFO staff and agents consuming seized fish or seafood?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1560—Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to real estate properties leased or owned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): (a) in what cities does the CBC (i) own, (ii) lease, its properties; (b) what is the total estimated or assessed value of properties owned by the CBC; (c) what was the total amount paid for leases by the CBC in the 2022-23 fiscal year; (d) what is the breakdown of (b) by property owned, including, for each, the address; and (e) what is the breakdown of (c) by city where property is leased?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1561—Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to non-disclosure agreements (NDA) signed by ministerial exempt staff as part of a legal settlement or agreement related to incidents that occurred involving ministers or their exempt staff, since January 1, 2017: (a) how many current and former exempt staff members are currently bound by an NDA; (b) how many such legal settlements or agreements have been signed by the government, broken down by year; and (c) what is the breakdown of the number of current or former exempt staff members who signed such an NDA, broken down by year and by the minister they were working for at the time of the incident?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1563—Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the government's executive vehicle fleet as of June 1, 2023: (a) what was the (i) year, make and model, (ii) purchase price, (iii) date of purchase, for each vehicle; and (b) to which minister or government executive was each vehicle in (a) assigned?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1564—Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to Elections Canada (EC): does EC have a strategy to prevent foreign interference in the next election, and, if so, (i) what is it, (ii) how much money is budgeted towards it, (iii) which diasporas or groups which were targeted in the 2019 and 2021 elections were consulted in the development of the strategy and how were they consulted?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1566—Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the electronic voters' list currently being created by Elections Canada (EC): what are the details of all contracts signed by EC related to the list, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) date and duration, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (competitive bid or sole-sourced)?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1567—Mr. Mike Morrice:
With regard to formal negotiations related to the forthcoming Canada Disability Benefit proposed under Bill C-22, Canada Disability Benefit Act, that have taken place between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments, or organizations from the disability community: (a) what are the details of the discussions or meetings, including, for each, the (i) date and location, (ii) participants, (iii) subject matter discussed, (iv) outcome; (b) do any supporting documents related to these discussions or meetings exist, including, but not limited to, emails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents; and (c) what is the government’s projected timeline for completing negotiations?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1569—Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to government protection for whistleblowers: (a) what specific protection is provided for whistleblowers who publicize wrongdoing within the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO); and (b) what mechanisms, if any, are in place to ensure that individuals within the PMO or the Privy Council Office do not punish such whistleblowers?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1573—Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to expenditures on hotel rooms by the government during or related to the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) in Montreal from December 7 to 19, 2022: (a) what was the total amount spent; (b) what are the details of the spending at each hotel, including the (i) total amount spent, (ii) name of the hotel, (iii) number of rooms rented each night, (iv) rate paid, including the number of rooms at each rate?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1574—Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the 42nd Parliament's Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, giving the Information Commissioner the power to make binding orders related to access to information requests: (a) how many binding orders has the Information Commissioner made since the bill received royal assent in June 2019, in total and broken down by each government institution subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (ATIP); (b) how many of the orders in (a) were (i) abided by, (ii) ignored, (iii) appealed or challenged in court; (c) for each order in (b) that was ignored, what was the (i) order given by the Information Commissioner, (ii) subject of the original ATIP request, (iii) reason for ignoring the order, (iv) title of the individual responsible for the decision to ignore the request; and (d) for each order in (b) that was appealed or challenged in court, what was the (i) order given by the Information Commissioner, (ii) subject of the original ATIP request, (iii) title of the individual responsible for appealing or challenging the order in court, (iv) total of the legal fees incurred to date by the recipient of the order, (v) outcome or status of the appeal?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1577—Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the news that Navigator Ltd. has been hired to support the work of special rapporteur David Johnston: (a) will payment for this firm be made by the government; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details, including the (i) total value of the relevant contract, (ii) date the contract was signed, (iii) end date of the contract, (iv) stated purpose of the contract, (v) details of the goods and services provided, (vi) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced, competitive bid, etc.); (c) are there any other contracts with any other external service providers to support the work of special rapporteur David Johnston; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the details, including the (i) total value of the relevant contract, (ii) date the contract was signed, (iii) end date of the contract, (iv) stated purpose of the contract, (v) details of the goods and services provided, (vi) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced, competitive bid, etc.)?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1578—Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to the government's use of the term "rapporteur": (a) what is the government's definition of rapporteur; and (b) what is the difference between an advisor and a rapporteur?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1579—Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to expenditures associated with David Johnston's role as a "special rapporteur": (a) what is the budget for the special rapporteur; (b) was the special rapporteur required to obtain sign-off from the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office (PCO) prior to retaining services from Navigator Ltd. and, if so, who approved the contract; (c) what is the value of the contract with Navigator Ltd.; (d) why was communication support from current government employees not provided to the special rapporteur by the PCO; (e) why did the special rapporteur determine there was a need to hire a crisis communications firm; (f) at what point did the special rapporteur determine that his communications were in crisis; and (g) why did the Prime Minister put David Johnston in a position where he would require crisis communications support?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1582—Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to expenditures related to the Prime Minister's trip to Montana in April 2023: (a) what were the total costs incurred by the government for (i) accommodations, (ii) per diems, (iii) other expenses, for the flight crew and government officials who travelled to Montana; and (b) are there any costs incurred or expected to be incurred by the government related to the trip that are not included in the response to (a), and, if so, what are those costs or expected costs, broken down by item and type of expense?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1584—Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to car and driver services provided to employees of departments, agencies, or Crown corporations, as of June 6, 2023, and excluding ministers and other elected officials: (a) how many employees are entitled to a car and driver; and (b) what are the titles of all employees who are entitled to a car and driver?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1585—Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario (FedNor), since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total amount of project funding announced by FedNor, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) program; (b) of the amount announced in (a), how much (i) was transferred to the recipient, (ii) was eventually cancelled, (iii) is still awaiting transfer, broken down by fiscal year and program; and (c) what are the details of all projects funded by FedNor, broken down by fiscal year, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) location, (iii) amount of FedNor contribution, (iv) program under which funding was provided, (v) project description, (vi) start date, (vii) completion date?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1586—Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), as of June 7, 2023: (a) what is the current backlog of air travel complaints, both in terms of the number of complaints and the number of months that new complaints are projected to wait before receiving a decision; (b) how many CTA employees are currently assigned to process air travel complaints; (c) what is the increase in the number of CTA employees assigned to work on air travel complaints between January 1 and June 7, 2023; and (d) what is the expected timeline for when the CTA backlog will be cleared to a point where new complaints receive a decision within (i) six months, (ii) three months, (iii) 30 days?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1589—Ms. Andréanne Larouche:
With regard to the New Horizons for Seniors Program (NHSP): (a) how many project applications were submitted in each province for the last three calls for community project proposals, broken down by constituency; (b) how many of the projects in (a) received a grant or contribution, broken down by constituency; (c) what calculation formulas are used to allocate grants and contributions by province when calls for project proposals are made; (d) according to the memorandum of understanding, what are the details of the collaboration between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec for the implementation of the NHSP; and (e) who sits on the selection committee established by the memorandum of understanding in (d)?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1590—Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Navy's Victoria-class submarines: what was the number of sea days each submarine has had for each of the last 48 months, broken down by month and by ship?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1591—Mr. Fraser Tolmie:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), since January 1, 2016: (a) how many pilots have (i) retired, (ii) received their wings, broken down by year; (b) what is the current pilot shortage level and when does the RCAF anticipate it will no longer have a shortage; (c) what is the average wait time for a waiver decision for former RCAF pilots who wish to reenlist without possessing the new educational requirements which were not in place when they received their wings; (d) did the government change the waiver procedure related to the instances in (c), specifically concerning whether the Chief of Defence Staff can authorize such a waiver or whether the waiver must be authorized by the Minister of National Defence, and, if so, (i) what was the change, (ii) on what date did the change occur, (iii) what was the rationale for the change; and (e) for each waiver application for a former RCAF pilot to reenlist, since 2016, what was the (i) date the application was made, (ii) date a decision was made, (iii) decision?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1592—Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB): (a) what was the actual cost to the fiscal framework of the CIB, broken down by year since the bank's inception; and (b) what are the projected allocated costs for the CIB's fiscal framework for each of the next 10 years?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1593—Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) what is the total number of citizenship applications received and granted or approved since January 1, 2015, broken down by calendar year; and (b) of the applications granted in (a), what is the breakdown between discretionary versus non-discretionary?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1594—Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada and the Global Heads of Mission meeting in Ottawa in June 2023: (a) which heads of mission attended the meeting (i) in person, (ii) virtually from the country in which they are stationed, (iii) virtually from a country other than in which they are stationed; (b) which heads of mission did not attend the meeting; and (c) when planning the event, what was the government's estimate of the costs associated with the event, including travel expenses?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1595—Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to sports, theatre, or concert tickets for events in the New York City area that were purchased by Global Affairs Canada or gifted to Canadian ambassadors, consul generals, diplomats and diplomatic staff, since January 1, 2022: (a) what are the details of all such tickets purchased, including, for each, the (i) amount paid, (ii) date of the event, (iii) location, (iv) type of event (concert, theatre, NHL hockey game, etc.), (v) title and description of the event, (vi) cost per ticket, (vii) number of tickets purchased, (viii) names or titles of those who used the tickets; and (b) what are the details of all such tickets which were received as gifts, including the (i) value, (ii) date of the event, (iii) location, (iv) type of event, (v) recipient of the gift, (vi) cost per ticket, (vii) number of tickets received?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1596—Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the commitment in the mandate letter of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations who provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status: (a) how does the government define dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options; (b) what consultation processes has the government undertaken; (c) what stakeholders and interested parties have government representatives met with since September 21, 2021; (d) on what dates were the meetings in (c) held; (e) how many organizations have received or maintained charitable status while meeting the definition in (a); and (f) is the government still committed to introducing amendments to the Income Tax Act?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1598—Ms. Melissa Lantsman:
With regard to polling conducted by or on behalf of the Privy Council Office since January 1, 2021: what are the details of all such polls, including, for each, (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the format, (iii) the date the poll was conducted, (iv) the topic, (v) the questions asked, (vi) the results, (vii) the value of the polling contract?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1599—Ms. Melissa Lantsman:
With regard to focus groups conducted by or on behalf of the Privy Council Office since January 1, 2021: what are the details of all such focus groups, including, for each, (i) who conducted the focus group, (ii) the date, (iii) the topic, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results, (vi) the value of the related contract?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1600—Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to expenditures made by the government under object code 0207 (Employee relocation in Canada) in each of the last three fiscal years (2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23): (a) what was the total amount spent each year, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity; and (b) what was the total amount spent each year for the relocation of ministerial exempt staff in Canada?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1601—Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to all correspondence and documents received by the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office from the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GFLC), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or Global Affairs Canada, since January 1, 2021, concerning the GFLC or the topic of Great Lakes fisheries: what are the details of each, including the (i) date it was received, (ii) recipient, (iii) sender, (iv) type of document, (v) title, (vi) subject matter, (vii) summary of content, (viii) file number?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1604—Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to Transport Canada (TC), Transport Canada's Pleasure Craft Electronic Licensing System (PCELS) and the proposed amendments listed in Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 157, Number 19: Regulations Amending the Small Vessel Regulations (SVRs): (a) what are the details of TC's cost benefit analysis which establishes the link between charging the operators of pleasure craft general service fees to remedy the unreliable information in the PCELS that is hampering search and rescue agencies and enforcement partners, including designated enforcement organizations (DEOs) that rely on accurate information when responding to emergencies; (b) what are the details of any complaints TC has received from DEOs in the last three years, about the unreliable information in the PCELS, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) name of the DEO that complained, (iii) summary of the complaint; (c) which current services delivered in the PCEL program are currently being used by DEOs; (d) what are the details of all proposals currently being worked on to modernize services related to SVRs; (e) what is the current cost to monitor and enforce the existing safety requirements of the SVR for pleasure craft; (f) what is the projected cost to monitor and enforce the safety requirement of the SVR for pleasure craft following the adoption of the proposed amendments; and (g) what is the projected cost of the public education and outreach campaign on the new licensing requirements and vessel management responsibilities, broken down by type of expenditure?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1606—Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to David Johnston's appointment as the special rapporteur tasked with assessing the extent and impact of foreign interference in Canada's electoral processes: how much total financial compensation is the government providing to David Johnston in relation to his role as the special rapporteur?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1608—Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government in 2016: (a) how much money has been allocated to the department of (i) Transport, (ii) Fisheries and Oceans, (iii) the Environment, under the OPP, broken down by year since 2016; (b) how much money has been spent under the OPP by the department of (i) Transport, (ii) Fisheries and Oceans, (iii) the Environment, broken down by year and program since 2016; (c) how much money from the OPP has been allocated to the Whales Initiative, broken down by year since 2016; (d) how much money has been spent under the OPP on the Whales Initiative since 2016; (e) how much money has been spent under the OPP on efforts to mitigate the potential impacts of oil spills, broken down by year and by program since 2016; and (f) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that the funding allocated under the OPP is spent on its stated goals in a timely manner?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1609—Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program since October 1, 2020, broken down by month: (a) what is the total amount the government has collected in repayments of student loans; (b) what is the total amount of new loans delivered to (i) full-time and part-time students, (ii) students from low-income and middle-income families, (iii) students with dependents, (iv) students with permanent disabilities; (c) how many new applications have been received under the (i) Repayment Assistance Plan, (ii) Repayment Assistance Plan for Borrowers with a Permanent Disability; and (d) how many borrowers have defaulted on their student loans?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1610—Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to addiction treatment facilities: how many facilities has the government contributed funding toward, since 2015, broken down by (i) the type of proponent of each facility (First Nations, provincial health authority, etc.), (ii) which federal funding programs were utilized, (iii) the amounts awarded by the federal government, (iv) the year in which the funding was awarded, (v) the aspect of the project that federal funding was used for (capital, operations etc.)?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1611—Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to rural post offices: how many rural post offices are there in Canada serving populations under 1,000, since 2015, broken down by: (i) postal code, (ii) the model they employ (postmaster-provided, franchise, etc.), (iii) the size of the population served, (iv) the annual leasing costs paid by Canada Post, (v) the percentage of the population served that is indigenous, (vi) the years the post office operated?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1613—Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the government’s Rapid Housing Initiative: how many housing projects in Skeena—Bulkley Valley have received financial contributions through this initiative to date, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) postal code, (iii) the amount of federal contribution, (iv) the total project budget, (v) proponent organization?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1615—Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs program, broken down by year from 2019 to 2023: (a) in which constituencies did Service Canada include the employer Priests for Life Canada in the list of eligible projects for review by members of Parliament; (b) for each of the constituencies identified, how many jobs and how much funding did Service Canada recommend; (c) on what basis did Service Canada determine that Priests for Life Canada met the eligibility requirements for funding; and (d) in which constituencies was Priests for Life Canada approved for funding by the member of Parliament?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1616—Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the handling of cases and claims pursuant to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement by the Department of Justice Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: (a) why did 215 survivors of St. Anne's Indian Residential School not get notice and not get proper evidence for their abuse claims; (b) what exactly were the third party obligations to the Catholic Church that were honoured by the government; and (c) in the documents to be sent, or already sent, to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation as a result of a memo of agreement signed by the government in 2022, do any contain details of child abuse?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1620—Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to government expenditures on membership fees, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity during the 2022-23 fiscal year: (a) what were the total expenditures; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) name of the entity for which the membership fee was paid, (ii) date of the purchase, (iii) amount, (iv) number of memberships purchased, (v) type of organization, if known (professional society, social club, golf club, etc.)?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1621—Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to wrapping or other advertising expenditures for the exteriors of buildings since April 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on wrapping or advertising, broken down by individual building; and (b) what are the details of all wrapping, tarp, or similar type of advertising on government buildings, broken down by individual building, including the (i) vendor, (ii) description of good or services provided, (iii) date, (iv) amount, (v) file number, (vi) address of the building, (vii) message on the wrapping or the summary of advertising campaign?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1622—Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office: (a) what is the current wait time between when a patent application is received and the patent is issued; (b) what was the wait time between when a patent application was received and the patent was issued as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2020; (c) what is the current backlog of patent applications in terms of the number of applications and projected wait time; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by province or territory and by country the application originated from; and (e) for each of the four options listed under "4 options to expedite patent examination" on the government's websites, what is the current backlog in terms of the number of applications and projected wait time?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1626—Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the Oil to Heat Pump Affordability Program, broken down by federal electoral district since the program’s inception: (a) what is the number of applications (i) received, (ii) approved; (b) what is the average payment amount approved for each household; (c) what is the average length of time between the submission of an application and the receipt of funds; and (d) what is the estimated reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1627—Mrs. Anna Roberts:
With regard to the Canada Pension Plan survivor's pension: (a) how many recipients are currently receiving the survivor's pension at the 60 percent level, in total and broken down by gender; (b) what is the total amount paid out in the last year to seniors receiving the survivor's pension at the 60 percent level; (c) what are the government's projections for (i) how many individuals will be eligible for survivor's pensions, both in total and broken down by gender, (ii) the total amount expected to be paid out to recipients, for each of the next five years; and (d) of those currently receiving the survivor's benefit at the 60 percent level, how many are living below the poverty level?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1628—Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Hamilton Centre, in each fiscal year since 2015-16, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to any organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) date the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1629—Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Development Finance Institute Canada (FinDev Canada): (a) broken down by fiscal year, starting with fiscal year 2018-19 to the present, what is the total amount of funds that the government, through all departments and agencies and available funding streams, provided to FinDev Canada; (b) were fund transfers publicly reported; (c) how would a member of the public find such public reporting; (d) which minister is responsible for direct oversight of FinDev Canada; (e) how does FinDev Canada communicate funding availability or calls for proposals to Canadian civil society organizations; (f) how does FinDev Canada publicly report its funded projects, including project summaries and anticipated outcomes; (g) what criteria, framework, or evaluation processes are used to evaluate a potential project’s funding application eligibility; (h) what role does the FinDev Canada’s Board of Directors play regarding the approval or rejection of project funding applications; (i) are there publicly available records of past and present votes by members of the board of directors regarding project funding approvals and rejections; (j) how are the funds’ end use (transferred to private equity funds, private banks, or other non-Government of Canada entities or organizations) reported; (k) how does FinDev Canada evaluate a potential project’s compliance with the Government of Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, the OECD DAC’s Blended Finance Principles and its Guidance on Implementing those Principles, IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability, ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, OECD Guidance on Responsible business conduct for institutional investors, OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises, and UN Guiding Principles of Business and Human Rights; (l) what policies or guidelines does FinDev Canada have regarding the use of offshore financial centres (“tax havens”); (m) how does FinDev Canada communicate guidance concerning projects and project outcomes and human rights due diligence to companies, entities, or individuals that receive FinDev Canada funds or other support; (n) what redress processes are available to local communities, individuals or institutions negatively impacted by projects funded by FinDev Canada; (o) how many complaints have been received by FinDev Canada, Global Affairs Canada or other government departments about projects funded directly or indirectly by FinDev Canada; (p) how many of these complaints have involved human rights concerns, labour rights concerns, environmental concerns, or social impacts caused or related to projects funded by FinDev Canada; (q) how are received complaints investigated; (r) what actions were taken by FinDev, if any, following complaints received; (s) what access do affected communities have to FinDev’s Independent Accountability Mechanism; and (t) what reports by the Independent Accountability Mechanism are public?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1631—Mr. Scott Aitchison:
With regard to surplus land owned by the government in census metropolitan areas: what are the details of all surplus land, including, for each piece of land, the (i) size, (ii) address, (iii) metropolitan area, (iv) description or type of land, (v) past use of land, if known, (vi) future planned use of land, if known?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1632—Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the processing times for applications submitted to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, as of June 1, 2023: (a) what are the processing times for the temporary programs, broken down by month in 2023 for (i) study permits, (ii) work permits, (iii) temporary residents; and (b) what are the processing times for permanent residency programs, broken down by month in 2023 for (i) privately sponsored refugees, (ii) federal government assisted refugees, (iii) the live-in caregiver program, (iv) spouses and partners, (v) children and other family class applicants, (vi) parents and grandparents?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1633—Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: what is the average age of accepted immigration applicants, broken down by each immigration stream?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1635—Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to citizenship court judges, and broken down by year for each of the last five years: (a) how many citizenships were reviewed by citizenship court judges; (b) how many citizenship court judges were there; (c) what are the renumeration details of citizenship judges, including salary and bonus ranges; (d) how many cases were heard and decisions rendered by the judges; (e) what were the total administrative costs associated with the citizenship court, broken down by type of cost; and (f) do citizenship judges preside over all citizenship commissions, and, if not, who presides over the commissions?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1636—Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to government contracts with vendors providing IT services to departments operating under the Treasury Board of Canada, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18, and by department: (a) what is the total number of contracts signed; (b) what are the details of all contracts signed, including the (i) vendor contracted, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) number of IT workers provided, (iv) duration of the contract; and (c) what is the total amount of extra costs incurred as a result of relying on IT vendors instead of employing IT workers directly?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1637—Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to Paul Bernardo's transfer from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison: (a) on what date did the Minister of Public Safety's office first become informed of a possible transfer; (b) who was the first person in the minister's office to become informed of a possible transfer and what action, if any, did that person take; (c) did the person in (b) immediately inform the Minister of Public Safety, and if not, why not; (d) on what date did the Office of the Prime Minister first become informed of a possible transfer; (e) who was the first person in the Prime Minister's office to become informed of a possible transfer and what action, if any, did that person take; and (f) did the person in (e) immediately inform the Prime Minister, and if not, why not?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1639—Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to airport rent collected by the government: (a) since 2016, how much in ground rent did Transport Canada receive from airports, broken down by year; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by airport; (c) what are Transport Canada's projections related to how much revenue it expects to receive in airport rent in (i) 2023, (ii) 2024, in total and broken down by airport; and (d) what was the net cost and revenue loss of the government's decision to waive ground rent from March to December 2020?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1641—Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the IT sector’s staff vacancy rate in the government as of June 1, 2023, broken down by department: what is the amount of vacant information technology (IT, Treasury Board code 303) positions, for each of the classification (i) IT-01, (ii) IT-02, (iii) IT-03, (iv) IT-04, (v) IT-05?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1642—Mr. Frank Caputo:
With regard to Corrections Services Canada: (a) how many dangerous offenders are currently housed in (i) minimum, (ii) medium, security prisons; and (b) how many offenders convicted of multiple murders are currently in medium security prisons?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1643—Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to retirement benefits for the Canada Border Services Agency law enforcement officers in the FB bargaining group, who are employed by the Department of National Defence in the SV (FR) bargaining group: (a) what has the government done to proceed with its commitment to pursue the necessary legislative amendments to enhance early retirement benefits under the public service pension plan for these employees; (b) what are the details of all consultations that have been undertaken concerning the legislative amendments in (a), including the (i) date of the consultation, (ii) parties consulted, (iii) suggested changes as a result of the consultation; (c) what is the timeframe for the government to introduce legislative amendments to enhance the retirement benefits of these employees; and (d) what efforts has the government made to ease the physical burden on these workers as a result of doing their job?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1644—Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the response from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to Order Paper question Q-1476, for each grant and contribution listed in the response: (a) what is the proposed number of Canadians who would be affected by the funding; (b) what is the actual number of Canadians affected by the funding; and (c) what is the current status of the project?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1645—Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s Venture Capital Catalyst Initiative (VCCI), since its inception in 2017: (a) what is the total amount of funds committed, broken down by fund or funds; and (b) for each fund or funds in (a), what are the details of all investments made, broken down by fiscal year, including the (i) name of the investee, (ii) location, (iii) date of the investment, (iv) amount invested, (v) monetary return on the investment, (vi) current operational status of the investee?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1647—Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada, since 2015: (a) what is the total amount of funds dispersed through the CanExport SMEs program, broken down by fiscal year; and (b) what are the details of all recipients of funding for each fiscal year of funding in (a), including (i) the name, (ii) the province of operation, (iii) the sector, (iv) the funding requested, (v) the funding granted, (vi) the intended non-travel activity indicated in the application, (vii) whether the recipient successfully exported their product?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1648—Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to the Canada Greener Homes Grant and applications from homeowners in Nunavut, broken down by fiscal year since the program’s inception: (a) what is the number of approved energy advisors serving in Nunavut; (b) what is the total number of (i) pre-retrofit, (ii) post-retrofit, EnerGuide evaluations completed in Nunavut; (c) what is the total number of requests for EnerGuide evaluations received from homeowners in Nunavut; (d) what was the total contribution from the government toward the costs of EnerGuide evaluations completed in Nunavut; (e) what is the total number of grants approved; and (f) what is the total value of the grants approved in (e)?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1649—Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the RCMP's response to media reports on June 19, 2023 that it was investigating the SNC-Lavalin affair: did the RCMP receive any communication or pressure from anyone in the government on June 19, 2023, including ministers, ministerial staff, or any government official, regarding the status of such an investigation, and, if so, what are the details of all such communication, including, for each, the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) time, (iv) type of communication (text, email, phone call, etc.), (v) summary of the contents?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1650—Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the Port Renfrew Multipurpose Marine Facility: (a) what progress has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard made concerning the completion of the facility; (b) what directives did the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard give to the department regarding her commitment to investigate the situation on Monday May 29, 2023; (c) are there other departments that have received requests for funding from Pacheedaht First Nation for the completion of this project; and (d) what assessments have been completed or requested by departments in (c) for this project?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1651—Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the Pacheedaht First Nation’s request for funding for a community school, since October 23, 2016: (a) what directives were given by the Minister of Indigenous Services to ensure the community received funding for the school’s completion; (b) what actions were taken by department staff resulting from the minister's directives in (a); (c) what are the details of all studies and reports conducted regarding the school, including the (i) department responsible for study, (ii) date completed, (iii) title, (iv) suggested actions or recommendations; and (d) does the government intend to provide financial assistance or professional assistance to Pacheedaht to help complete the school?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1652—Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to projects or initiatives that support soil conservation and soil health in Canada, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what are the details of all resources dedicated to (i) developing and maintaining soil organic matter, soil erosion risk and soil cover indicators, (ii) the Canadian Soil Information Service, (iii) the Environmental Farm Plans, (iv) the On-Farm Applied Research and Monitoring program; (b) has the government established measurable goals for soil conservation and soil health, including the (i) transition to farming practices that remove carbon dioxide from the environment, (ii) farming practices that use minimal tillage methods; and (c) does the government believe that there is a link between soil health and accessible, affordable food?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1654—Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the government’s commitment to close the infrastructure gap on First Nations reserves by 2030: (a) what metrics does the government use to measure the existing gap; (b) what is the government’s current estimate of the infrastructure gap; and (c) does the government believe it is on track to meet the mandate assigned to the minister?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1655—Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to forms required by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) for on-reserve housing funding, broken down by funding stream: (a) what is the total number of forms required to complete each stage of the application and funding process; (b) what are the details of each form in (a), including the (i) title of the form, (ii) purpose, (iii) number of pages; and (c) what resources has ISC provided to First Nations to assist with completing these forms, broken down by First Nation?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1656—Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the Circuit Rider Training Program operated by Indigenous Services Canada, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what is the total number of trained experts available to assist First Nations communities; (b) how many site visits did the experts in (a) make, broken down by First Nation visited; (c) what is the total number of individuals who received training and certification funding through this program; (d) how many requests for assistance through this program have been denied or not yet responded to; and (e) for what reason was each visit in (d) denied?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1657—Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) processing times for interactions with taxpayers: (a) what service standards does the CRA apply in issuing notices of assessment for (i) digital individual income tax returns, (ii) paper individual tax returns; (b) reflected as a number and a percentage, what is the amount of notices of assessment that failed to meet the service standards expected in (a) and what is the (i) average time, (ii) median, time to deliver notices of assessment; (c) what is the total number of employees assigned to take telephone inquiries from taxpayers; (d) on average, how many telephone requests from taxpayers does the CRA receive each business day; and (e) what is the average time taxpayers spend on hold when calling the CRA?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1658—Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the $1.2 billion in budget 2022 allocated to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) which tools and resources have been added to expand audits of larger entities and non-residents engaged in aggressive tax planning; (b) what is the total number of new staff added to help with the audits in (a); (c) what is the year-over-year increase in investigations and prosecutions as a result of this investment; (d) what efforts have been made to expand the CRA’s educational outreach; and (e) what is the total amount invested for the purposes of (d)?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1662—Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to funding provided through the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program by Health Canada or Indigenous Services Canada: what are the details of all First Nations treatment centres which are currently receiving funding through the program, including for each, the (i) First Nation, (ii) location, or address, (iii) name of the facility, (iv) programs funded, (v) amount of annual funding provided by Health Canada, (vi) amount of annual funding provided by Indigenous Services Canada?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1663—Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to the government’s efforts to improve emergency towing capacity along all coasts, broken down by fiscal year: (a) what are the details of all consultations to develop the National Strategy on Emergency Towing, including the (i) date of the consultation, (ii) government representatives and organizations involved, (iii) recommendations provided to the government; (b) what is the total number of emergency towing vessels currently available to respond to incidents on the (i) Western Coast, (ii) Northern waters, (iii) Atlantic Coast; (c) broken down by coast, what were the total number of incidents that the vessels in (b) responded to; and (d) broken down by coast, what was the total number of incidents that the vessels in (b) did not respond to?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1665—Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's (CMHC) insured mortgages, broken down by individual and corporate borrowers for each year since 2017, and by province: (a) how many mortgages have defaulted; (b) what was the value of the mortgages in (a); (c) how many times has CMHC had to repay a bank on behalf of the insured due to mortgage defaults; (d) how much have those defaults cost CMHC; and (e) how has the frequency of defaults increased or decreased, relative to the Bank of Canada interest rate adjustments?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1666—Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's insured mortgages for multi-unit residential properties, broken down by year and by province since 2017: (a) how many mortgages have been insured for real estate investment trusts; and (b) how many mortgages have been insured for other corporate borrowers?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1667—Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to operating or subsidy agreements related to co-operative, social and community housing, broken down by year and province since 1993: (a) how many agreements have expired; and (b) how many units of co-operative, social and community housing have been lost as a result of the agreements expiring, broken down by type of unit, province and municipality?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1668—Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to government funding for the management of aquatic invasive species: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided, broken down by year and by department or agency, between 2016 and 2022; (b) what is the total amount of funding budgeted for 2023, broken down by department or agency; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory; (d) what are the details of all such funding provided to provincial or territorial governments since 2016, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) amount, (iv) project description and purpose of funding; and (e) what are the details of all such funding provided to organizations since 2016, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) amount, (iv) project description and purpose of funding, (v) locations where funding will target invasive species, if applicable?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1672—Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s flagging of social media accounts or pages: (a) since 2016, have any specific social media accounts or pages been flagged by either Canadian Heritage or the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission as examples of potential “harmful content” or “misinformation”; (b) how many accounts or pages in (a) were hosted on (i) YouTube, (ii) Facebook, (iii) Twitter, (iv) Instagram, (v) Reddit, (vi) Google search, (vii) other platforms, broken down by platform; (c) of accounts or pages in (b), what are the usernames of the flagged accounts and what is the specific reason why each account was flagged; (d) of the accounts in (a), what is the breakdown of the reasons for having flagged these accounts or pages by the number of times each reason was used; and (e) has the government taken any action in relation to the accounts or pages flagged in (a), and, if so, what specific actions were taken?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1673—Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s response to the Hong Kong Pathway lifeboat scheme and intimidation of the Hong Kong Canadian community: (a) will the government consider improving the policies of the Hong Kong Pathway Stream B to (i) expand and extend its scope, (ii) waive the requirement for a police certificate; (b) what is the timeline for the government to make changes related to (a); (c) what measures will the government take to prevent intimidation by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and ensure public safety in the Hong Kong Canadian community; and (d) what steps will the government take to investigate and prevent CCP infiltration and intimidation in Canada and when will each of these measures be implemented?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1674—Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the special measures program for Afghanistan announced by the government: (a) what is the number of visible minorities that have been evacuated thus far, in total; (b) how many of the evacuees in (a) were (i) Afghan Hindus, (ii) Sikhs, (iii) Christians; (c) are there currently Afghan allied interpreters still in Afghanistan awaiting evacuation, and, if so, how many; and (d) what is the government doing to accelerate evacuation efforts for Afghan nationals whose safety remains at risk while waiting in limbo across third party countries such as India and Pakistan?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1675—Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the Special Economic Measures Regulations and pursuing the forfeiture of assets of sanctioned Russians: (a) what is the total number of individuals sanctioned to date; (b) among the sanctioned individuals, how many (i) have known assets in Canada, (ii) do not have any known assets in Canada; (c) of those with known assets in Canada, how many have had their assets seized; (d) what is the total number of entities that have been sanctioned to date; (e) among the sanctioned entities, how many (i) have known assets in Canada, (ii) do not have any known assets in Canada; (f) of those with known assets in Canada, how many have had their assets seized; and (g) what is the current value of assets seized to date from (i) individuals, (ii) entities?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1676—Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the inconsistencies in the reporting of data by certain departments and agencies in the government's response to Order Paper question Q-1385 on security clearance denials: (a) has the government provided direction to all departments to (i) collect and record data on security clearances, (ii) standardize responses, and, if so, what are the details; and (b) why were certain departments and agencies permitted to provide the response (i) "In processing Parliamentary Returns, the Government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes personal information," (ii) "In processing Parliamentary Returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. Information has been withheld on the grounds that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada, or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities," while other departments provided the exact information and numbers requested?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1678—Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the Special Immigration Measures for Afghan Nationals who assisted the Government of Canada: (a) broken down by unique email address, how many applications were received via email or webform for this program, to date; (b) how many application names did not appear on Department of National Defence (DND) or Global Affairs Canada (GAC) referral lists; (c) were the applicants in (b) notified that their application was not referred to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what recourse options are available to the applicant to demonstrate their eligibility; and (e) what guidance or internal policy has DND and GAC used to determine eligibility of Afghan Nationals that applied for this program?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1679—Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to government funding in the constituencies of Windsor West, Essex and Windsor—Tecumseh: what is the total amount spent since the fiscal year 2020-21 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by department or agency, initiative, and amount?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1681—Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the Accelerated Investment Incentive, broken down by fiscal year since 2018: (a) how many corporations in the oil and gas sector have (i) qualified for the incentive, (ii) received an incentive; (b) how much foregone revenue to the federal government due to the incentive was related to the oil and gas sector; (c) how much foregone revenue to the federal government under the incentive was from eligible Canadian development expenses or Canadian oil and gas property expenses; and (d) what was the average tax deduction received?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1682—Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the findings from the 2023 Auditor General Report 2 titled “Connectivity in Rural and Remote Areas” that “59.5% of households had access to Internet coverage at the target speeds” in rural and remote areas: (a) after the completion of the Universal Broadband Fund, what percentage of rural and remote communities will still need connectivity to meet the 50/10 goal; (b) by 2026, what is the estimated percentage of rural and remote households that will be connected to the 50/10 goal based on funded and projected projects; (c) what improvements are planned for the Internet Service Availability map to ensure that it is up to date and accurate; (d) when will each of the improvements in (c) be implemented; (e) does the National Broadband Internet Service Availability Map share a data source with the Ontario New Interactive High-Speed Internet Map; and (f) what is the breakdown of the submissions received by (i) consumers, (ii) providers on the feedback section of the government’s web page titled “High-speed Internet for all Canadians”, broken down by geographic area the submission was from and by the nature of the feedback?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1683—Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to funding allocated to all Great Lakes programs and organizations: what was the total amount of funding allocated since the 2012 fiscal year up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by year, organization, amount and purpose of intended funding?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1684—Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the budget 2021 allocation of $647.1 million over five years, plus $98.9 million in amortization as part of the Pacific Salmon Strategic Initiative (PSSI): (a) how many hatchery operations have been funded under the PSSI pillar of enhanced hatchery production; (b) what are the names and locations of the hatcheries funded by PSSI for each year since 2021; (c) how many individual commercial salmon licenses have been retired each year since 2021 under the PSSI pillar of "harvest transformation''; (d) how much was paid for each license retirement; and (e) how many more individual commercial salmon licenses does the PSSI deem necessary to retire?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1685—Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the budget 2021 allocation of $647.1 million over five years, plus $98.9 million in amortization as part of the Pacific Salmon Strategic Initiative (PSSI): (a) how many employees have been hired to work in the PSSI, for each year since 2021; (b) how many employees have transferred from other government departments or entities to work in the PSSI, for each year since 2021; (c) what is the total amount of salaries and benefits for PSSI employees, for each year since 2021; (d) how many more employees does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans plan to hire to work in the PSSI; (e) what is the breakdown of the locations of PSSI employees by region; (f) how many contractors have been hired to support PSSI activities, for each year since 2021; and (g) what are the details of each contract supporting PSSI activities, including the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) value, (iv) description of goods or services?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1687—Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' management of fisheries from 2016 to 2022: (a) what was the total number of fisheries managed by the department each year; (b) in how many fisheries did the department reduce licenses each year, and, for each reduction, what was the total number of licenses reduced per fishery and per year; (c) in how many fisheries did the department reduce total allowable catch each year and for each reduction, what were the total reductions of total allowable catch per fishery per year; (d) in how many fisheries did the department reduce quotas each year and for each reduction, what were the total reductions of quota per fishery per year; and (e) how much compensation was disbursed for reductions of (i) licenses, (ii) total allowable catch, (iii) quotas?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1688—Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to the cost of fighting wildfires since 2012: (a) broken down by year from 2012 to 2022, what was the total federal expenditure each year for (i) international assistance provided to provinces and territories, (ii) assistance from the Canadian Armed Forces provided to provinces and territories, (iii) assistance from other federal departments and agencies provided to provinces and territories, broken down by department and agency, (iv) fighting wildfires inside national parks, (v) fighting wildfires on Indian reserves, (vi) fighting wildfires on other federal lands; and (b) what is the total federal expenditure in each category in (a) between January 1, 2023 and June 30, 2023?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1689—Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the government’s engagements with the World Economic Forum (WEF): (a) what are the details of all contracts, transfer payments, memoranda of understanding, letters of intent, charters, accords, projects, and associations between the government and the WEF since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of engagement (e.g., contract, memoranda of understanding, project, association), (iii) name or title, (iv) duration, (v) departments engaged, (vi) purpose, (vii) summary of the terms, (viii) description of deliverables, (ix) cost to the taxpayer, (x) achieved or anticipated outcomes; and (b) what is the total dollar amount transferred to the WEF by the government since November 4, 2015, in total and broken down by year?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1690—Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the ArriveCan application: (a) what risks did the government identify with regard to the ongoing use and potential broadened use of the application; (b) which international health organizations and their institutions did the government identify to submit Canadians’ personal information to, as noted in the original version of the application’s privacy notice; (c) did the government submit Canadians’ personal data that it received through the ArriveCAN application to any international organization, and, if so, what information was shared and with whom; (d) what were the specific reasons for authorizing the sharing Canadians’ information with the organizations in (b); and (e) what are the details of all memoranda or other documents received by either the Minister of Public Safety, his office, his senior officials or by senior executives at the Canada Border Services Agency, related to the ArriveCAN application that contain reference to the “Known Traveller Digital Identity” program, or the “Digital Identity Program”, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) sender, (iv) title, (v) type of document, (vi) summary, (vii) subject matter, (viii) file number?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1692—Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the legislative review of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act: (a) what are the details of all written submissions received, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender’s name, title, and organization, (iii) type of document, (iv) title, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number; (b) what are the details of all meetings conducted in the course of the review, including, for each, (i) the names and titles of individuals in attendance, (ii) the date, (iii) the location, (iv) whether the meeting was in person, virtual, or hybrid, (v) the agenda items, (vi) the minutes of meeting or summary of event; (c) of the $8.6 billion in private and institutional capital attracted by the Canada Infrastructure Bank to date, how much of that capital is from (i) pension funds, (ii) labour unions, (iii) provincial or federal Crown corporations; and (d) why was (i) the Lake Erie Connector Project, (ii) other unsuccessful projects, not mentioned in the legislative review?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 1693—Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the government responses to Order Paper questions (OPQ) and the information contained in the package released by Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) to Access to Information Request A-2022-00489: (a) since January 1, 2016 what instructions, definitions, directives, or other advice has the Privy Council Office (PCO) provided any departments, including those sent through the Parliamentary Returns Control Assistance System with the use or the development of (i) so-called “high-level limitation language”, a term used throughout Access to Information Request A-2022-00489, (ii) other means of not directly responding to each part of a question, and what are the details of each instance, including for each, the (A) date, (B) instruction, directive, or advice, (C) recipient, (D) relevant OPQ numbers; (b) are communications risks considered when departments develop responses to OPQs, and, if so, (i) what is the protocol, (ii) what measures are in place to ensure that Parliamentarians who submit OPQs receive responses that are complete and are not politically manipulated; (c) since January 1, 2016, what government-wide practices, protocols, or procedures have been developed to provide justification for not directly responding to each part of a question; (d) when the term “inherent risk” is used in relation to the use of so-called “high-level limitation language” or other means of not answering a question, what type of risk is being assessed; (e) on which other responses to OPQs in the 44th Parliament did (i) NRCAN, (ii) any other department or agency, strategize on how or if to use “high-level limitation language” or otherwise non-responsive language in a response to an OPQ; (f) for each instance where so-called “high-level limitation language” was used to avoid answering each part of a question, what was the reason for the non-answer, broken down by OPQ number; (g) did the Office for the Coordination of Parliamentary Returns in the PCO authorize NRCAN to use “high-level limitation language” to avoid directly answering any OPQs, and, if so, who authorized such as response, broken down by each question where such a non-answer was given; (h) what did Kyle Harrietha, the former Minister of Natural Resources’ Deputy Chief of Staff, mean when he wrote that the Speaker of the House of Commons is going to “tut tut”; (i) how was the “high-level limitation language” used in the government’s response to Q-974 arrived at, including who came up with the language that was used; (j) who decides when NRCAN uses “high-level limitation language” to avoid directly answering a question; (k) was the Minister of Natural Resources informed that he was signing an incomplete response prior to him signing the response to Q-974, and, if so, why did he sign the response; (l) what is NRCAN’s explanation for how multiple departments come up with identical language when using “high-level limitation language”; (m) who in the PCO, the Office of the Prime Minister or the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was involved in the development of the template and language used in the response to Q-974; and (n) what was the rationale for using “high-level limitation language” in the response to Q-974 as opposed to directly answering the question?
(Return tabled)
[English]
:
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.
Some hon. members: Agreed.