Debates of Jan. 31st, 2022

Question No.19—

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA. As of the date of the inquiry, that is November 23, 2021, the tourism and hospitality recovery program being referred to in the question had not yet opened for applications. As such, the CRA cannot answer in the manner requested as there are no data available at this time.

Question No.23—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

With regard to information collected from the former long-gun registry that was abolished in 2012: does the government, including the RCMP, currently have access to any of the information collected from the former registry, and, if so, what specific information and how is it being used?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Bill C-19, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, all registration records for non-restricted firearms were destroyed in the Canadian firearms information system, CFIS, in 2012, with the exception of Quebec records deleted in 2015.

However, prior to the destruction of the Quebec records, pursuant to a court order, the RCMP was ordered by the Federal Court to retain a copy of the Quebec non-restricted firearm registration records outside of the Canadian firearms information system, CFIS, in an independent unconnected repository due to litigation with the Office of the Information Commissioner.

In accordance with the provisions in Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, a copy was provided to the Quebec Ministry of Public Security. The records need to be retained until no longer required for access to information and privacy, ATIP, purposes. These records are not accessible for any other purpose, and remain offline.

The Office of the Information Commissioner is currently confirming that there are no outstanding provisions that require the copy to be retained. Once confirmation is received, the copy of the Quebec non-restricted firearm registration records can be destroyed.

Question No.28—

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With regard to considerations or analysis made by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) to move the Embassy of Canada to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, since January 1, 2016: (a) what specific actions were taken by GAC in relation to any considerations or analysis made related to the location of the embassy; (b) what was the specific timeline for each action in (a); (c) what was the final decision regarding whether to move the embassy or not; (d) how many officials were assigned to analyze or give consideration to options related to a possible relocation of the embassy; and (e) have GAC officials conducted any site visits to potential locations in Jerusalem which may be used in the future by GAC, and, if so, what are the details including, the (i) location, (ii) date of the visit, (iii) potential future uses by GAC?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. Global Affairs Canada has not taken any actions related to moving the Embassy of Canada to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On December 6, 2017, the United States announced it would formally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and would begin the process of moving the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. On December 7, 2017, the Prime Minister stated publicly that Canada would not be moving its embassy from Tel Aviv.

Question No.30—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB): (a) how many individuals who received CERB had a mailing address outside of Canada; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by the number of individuals in each country; and (c) what is the total value of CERB payments made to individuals with a mailing address outside of Canada?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, in response to (a), a total of 1,610 individuals who received CERB had a mailing address outside of Canada.

In response to (b), the breakdown of individuals who received CERB is 60 in Australia, 20 in China, 80 in France, 20 in Germany, 80 in India, 50 in Ireland, 20 in Japan, 20 in New Zealand, 20 in the Philippines, 90 in the United Kingdom, 720 in the United States, and 420 in all other countries.

Countries with fewer than 20 beneficiaries have been grouped into a single category to ensure confidentiality. All counts are rounded to the nearest 10.

In response to (c), the total value of CERB payments is $11,906,000. Dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest 1000.

While CERB required individuals to reside inside Canada to qualify, some individuals may have been out of the country on a temporary basis, or working in Canada on a temporary basis: for example, a student who is temporarily abroad, someone temporarily working abroad, someone who could not make it back into the country due to the pandemic, or a temporary worker who has fallen ill but their home address is in another country.

This response is derived using data as of late November 2021. These data are updated daily to reflect new beneficiaries, additional or completed benefits, changes in rules, etc. While daily changes typically have a small impact on global counts and payment amounts, it should be noted that this table may not match previously published information. There are a few reasons to explain these differences: For example, cases now have a more recent address in our data holding; cases cover a situation where the CERB benefit was changed to another benefit type; cases where the CERB benefits were reclaimed.

Question No.33—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

With regard to executives at the Canadian Infrastructure Bank receiving bonuses during the COVID-19 pandemic: for the 2020-21 fiscal year, how many executives received bonuses in excess of (i) $100,000, (ii) $250,000?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, during the 2020-21 fiscal year, the members of the executive committee of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, CIB, consisted of the following individuals: chief executive officer, who is responsible for strategic business leadership and overall performance of the organization; chief investment officer, who is responsible for advisory and investment strategy and activities, capital deployment and asset management; chief financial officer and chief administrative officer, who is responsible for corporate finance, ERM, legal and compliance, human resources, information technology and administration; group head, corporate affairs, policy and communications, who is responsible for federal government relations, corporate planning, communications, media and stakeholder relations, knowledge and policy research.

Details of the CIB’s compensation to executives, including the principles and the criteria used in reaching executive compensation decisions for the 2020-21 fiscal year, are disclosed in the CIB’s 2020-21 annual report submitted to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and the President of the Treasury Board, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act. Compensation paid for each fiscal year to key management personnel, which includes executives and members of the board of directors, is disclosed in the notes to the annual audited financial statements in the CIB’s annual report. Page 86 of the 2020-21 annual report describes key management personnel compensation for the 2020-21 fiscal year. Salaries and short-term employee benefits were $3,075 million.

With regard to bonuses received by executives as it pertains to the members of the executive committee listed above, the information constitutes “personal information” as defined in the Privacy Act, and the CIB applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act to withhold information that constitutes personal information.

The CIB requires individuals with commercial experience and professional skills from the investment and finance industries to develop and execute complex infrastructure projects in partnership with proponents and private sector investors to deliver the best value for public resources. Consistent with these objectives, the CIB’s compensation framework reflects best practices of Crown corporations and other comparable organizations in the financial services and insurance sectors to ensure the compensation rates are fair and appropriate. The CIB does not disclose individual compensation received by the chief executive officer and other executives, due to competitive and privacy considerations. This disclosure complies with the requirements for Crown corporations in the Financial Administration Act and is aligned with the policies, guidelines and directives established by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, including guidance with respect to the preparation of corporate plans and annual reports.

On June 30, 2021, the CIB provided a response to a motion passed at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities requesting that the CIB file all documents detailing the bonus policies and payment of bonuses to executives and the board of directors since the CIB’s inception.

Question No.39—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

With respect to the government’s energy policy and its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: (a) how does the government define the term “fossil fuel subsidy” in the context of its commitments in this respect; (b) what level of carbon tax does the government consider necessary for Canada to meet all of its greenhouse gas reduction commitments; and (c) what is the estimated cost to the Canadian economy associated with each of the measures announced by the government at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP26?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), while there is no commonly held definition, there has been a general understanding that fossil fuel subsidies encompass price controls, cash subsidies and tax preferences—i.e., concessions from a particular country’s “normal” level of taxation—whether aimed at producers or consumers of fossil fuel. The term “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies also lacks a commonly accepted definition and was not defined in any of the four pairs of G20 peer reviews completed to date. Environment and Climate Change Canada and Finance Canada are working to finalize an assessment framework that will define these terms in the Canadian context.

In response to (b), there is a clear cost from a changing climate, so it cannot be free to pollute. That is why the Government of Canada introduced a price on carbon pollution across Canada in 2019. Putting a price on carbon pollution reduces emissions and encourages innovation, allowing Canada to meet its economic needs and its environmental goals at the same time. The price on carbon pollution is currently $40 per tonne. It will increase annually until it reaches $170 per tonne in 2030. The increasing price will make cleaner options more affordable and discourage pollution-intensive investments.

As the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed, the Government of Canada’s carbon pricing system is not a tax.

Carbon pricing is a key part of the government’s approach to reducing emissions while supporting the transition to a competitive, low-carbon economy. It is not the only measure being used, however, and the government has therefore not projected what carbon price would be needed in the absence of other measures to achieve either its 2030 national determined commitment of 40% to 45% reduction below 2005 levels or its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

In response to (c), the actions taken by this government to address climate change, including through the strengthened climate plan and the important announcements made at COP26, are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to the harmful effects of climate change while growing our economy. The environment and the economy go hand in hand.

Question No.41—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

With regard to the AUKUS trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States announced in September 2021: (a) on what date did the government become aware of conversations surrounding the creation of AUKUS; (b) was Canada invited to join AUKUS, and, if so, why did it decline the invitation; (c) is the government interested in having Canada join AUKUS; and (d) has the government conducted any assessments on whether the creation of AUKUS had a positive or negative impact on Canada’s national interest, and, if so, what were the findings of the assessment?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. With respect to parts (a) to (d), a changing world requires adapting and expanding diplomatic engagement. Canada will continue working with key allies and partners, while making deliberate efforts to deepen partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. AUKUS is a partnership that responds to the security needs of Australia, including that country’s decision to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to maximize the range and capabilities of Australia’s submarines. Canada currently has no plans to acquire nuclear submarines, the centerpiece of the arrangement announced on September 15, 2021. As such, Canada has not and does not seek to be directly involved in the nuclear-powered submarine aspects of this trilateral arrangement, nor would the Government of Canada expect to have been consulted on such an arrangement.

Prior to the announcement of AUKUS, our Australian, United Kingdom and United States counterparts ensured that Canada was briefed on the announcement. Although the announcement occurred prior to the newly appointed ministers, both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence continue to remain in close contact, as always, with all three countries on matters of defence cooperation and with respect to our shared strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region.

Security in the Indo-Pacific is a priority that requires close collaboration with a wide range of partners and Canada remains committed to working with our partners and allies on security and stability in the region.

Canada has expanded its defence and security engagement in the Indo-Pacific region through an enhanced naval presence, growing multilateral contributions and increased bilateral engagement with key partners.

Question No.42—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

With regard to government meetings and representations since January 1, 2020, concerning the situation of Mr. Huseyin Celil: (a) which ministers, Liberal members of Parliament acting on behalf of a minister, political staff, or senior officials have met with Kamila Talendibaeva, and what are the details of each meeting, including (i) the date, (ii) the individuals in attendance, (iii) whether the meeting was virtual or in person; (b) which ministers, Liberal members of Parliament acting on behalf of a minister, political staff, or senior officials have met with any other representatives of Mr. Celil, and what are the details of each meeting, including (i) the date, (ii) the individuals in attendance, (iii) whether the meeting was virtual or in person; (c) has the government highlighted Mr. Celil’s case in conversations or meetings with representatives of the US government or the government of any other allied country and, if so, what are the details of each such instance, including the (i) country, (ii) title of the Canadian representative; (iii) title of the foreign official, (iii) date; and (d) what are the details of all representations which have been made to the Chinese government regarding Mr. Celil’s case by representatives of the Canadian government, including (i) who made these representations, (ii) who were they made to, (iii) the date?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. While privacy considerations prevent the sharing of details, the Government of Canada has been clear from the beginning that the case of Mr. Huseyincan Celil is of utmost importance and has been actively engaged on his case. Canadian officials in Ottawa and Beijing are in regular contact with Mr. Celil’s family in Canada, as well as their representatives, to provide support.

Canada has repeatedly raised Mr. Celil’s case with Chinese counterparts at the highest levels. Since his initial detention, Canadian government representatives have made over 170 representations to Chinese officials on Mr. Celil’s behalf and will continue to do so.

Question No.57—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

With regard to the changes outlined in Transport Canada’s Advisory Circular No. 301-001 issue no. 3 respecting the rules regarding Instrument Approach Procedures at non-certified aerodromes: (a) what is the policy objective for this change; (b) how many additional days a year on average, broken down by province, will non-certified aerodromes be inaccessible due to the new instrument approach procedures; (c) what exceptions are being made to ensure that medical evacuation flights will not be impacted by this change; and (d) when is the change expected to come into force?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a), aviation safety is a key priority for Transport Canada. The objective of the amendments to Transport Canada’s advisory circular No. 301-001, issue no. 3, respecting the rules regarding instrument approach procedures at non-certified aerodromes is to improve the level of safety offered by instrument approaches in Canada and bring it to par with that of the international community, the Federal Aviation Administration and what is currently offered at certified aerodromes, namely airports, in Canada.

With respect to part (b), Transport Canada does not track aerodrome accessibility. Rather, it is the responsibility of non-certified aerodrome operators to select the level of service that meets the needs of their communities and, subsequently, it is also their responsibility to meet the aviation safety regulatory requirements associated with the level of service they determine is the best for their community.

With respect to part (c), the department does not anticipate the need for deviation or exemption for the great majority of aerodromes with the introduction of the new specifications, which will be scalable to individual aerodromes. However, if there is a need for a deviation or exemption, the aerodrome operator, through the sponsor of the instrument approach procedure, may submit an exemption request, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This includes the need for the requesting party to make the demonstration that the exemption is in the public interest and that the proposed mitigations provide an equivalent level of safety to the Canadian aviation regulations it seeks to be exempted from. In this instance, no exemptions are being considered, and this is not the issue at play for the reason noted below.

The vast majority of airports, namely certified aerodromes, are suitable for most medical evacuations or medevac operations. It is non-certified registered aerodromes, that we are discussing in the context of advisory circular No. 301-001, and not all aerodromes, registered or not, are suitable for every type of operation. In fact, some aerodromes, for example, short and/or obstacles rich runway environment, may not be suitable for fixed wing medevacs or most commercial operations. As mentioned above, it is ultimately the pilot’s responsibility to ensure that the aerodrome they intend to operate at is suitable for the type of aircraft they intend to use and the type of operation they intend to conduct.

With respect to part (d), Transport Canada’s advisory circular No. 301-001, issue no. 3, was due to come into force on December 31, 2021. However, as noted above, a new version is being developed and is expected to be available before the end of the current fiscal year. Transport Canada will continue to work with key stakeholders, including Nav Canada, on the implementation of the revised advisory circular.

Question No.60—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

With regard to the Advisory Panel on Systemic racism, discrimination with a focus on anti-Indigenous and anti-Black racism, LGBTQ2+ prejudice, gender bias and white supremacy announced by the Minister of National Defence in December 2020: (a) why was focusing on antisemitism and Islamophobia not part of the panel’s mandate; (b) was the decision to exclude antisemitism or Islamophobia intentional or was it a mistake; and (c) if these exclusions were a mistake, what specific action, if any, has the Minister of National Defence taken to correct these errors, and on what date was the action taken?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, there is no room in the Canadian Armed Forces or the Department of National Defence for sexism, misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, discrimination, harassment or any other conduct that prevents the institution from being a truly welcoming and inclusive organization.

National Defence understands that culture change within the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence is required to remove toxic behaviours and to create an environment where everyone is respected, valued, and can feel safe to contribute to the best of their ability.

This is why on December 17, 2020, the Minister of National Defence created an advisory panel as part of National Defence’s efforts to support Indigenous, Black and people of colour, along with the LGBTQ2+ community, and women.

With respect to parts (a), (b) and (c), the minister’s advisory panel is mandated to identify and address systemic racism and discrimination within the Defence team. Additionally, the advisory panel is tasked with providing advice and recommendations on how to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination, which impacts the recruitment, retention and equality of opportunity for all marginalized and racialized members of the Defence team.

The panel’s mandate was purposely made broad to ensure that the panel’s scope could be as far-reaching as required. While the panel is designed to focus on anti-indigenous and anti-Black racism, LGBTQ2+ prejudice, gender bias and white supremacy, the panel is not restricted from exploring all forms of racism.

The exploration of white supremacy allows the panel to address anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, as Jewish and Muslim people are common targets of white supremacy and white supremacists. For example, as part of its engagements with internal and external defence stakeholders, panel members have explored the concept of anti-hate, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia within National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. This included holding separate meetings with members of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, and the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism at the Ontario Tech University, to discuss issues related to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

The advisory panel has regularly met with the minister’s office to update and brief it on their progress. Due to challenges caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic, the panel requested and received a short extension to provide its report. The panel delivered its final report and recommendations to address the policies, processes and practices that enable discriminatory behaviours within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to the minister on January 7, 2022.

The Minister of National Defence is currently reviewing the panel’s report and recommendations and will meet with departmental officials to discuss potential next steps.

The panel’s report and recommendations will contribute to eliminating harmful attitudes and beliefs that have enabled racism and discrimination, and will create an environment where all feel welcome in the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces.

Question No.61—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

With regard to the appointment of the Honourable Irwin Cotler as Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism: (a) what specific government resources have been allocated to the Envoy to ensure he can fulfill his mandate; (b) since his appointment on November 25, 2020, what specific measurable outcomes have been achieved; (c) will there be regular reports tabled by or on behalf of the Envoy outlining his progress and, if so, what are the details; and (d) has office space been allocated to the envoy and, if so, where are the offices located (i.e. city and address)?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Diversity and Inclusion)]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to (a), Global Affairs Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage have supported the special envoy during the first year through existing departmental resources. The Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion within Global Affairs has dedicated the equivalent of 1.5 full-time equivalents, FTEs, to support the special envoy as he fulfills his international mandate. The multiculturalism and anti-racism branch within the Department of Canadian Heritage has also dedicated the equivalent of 1.5 FTEs to support the special envoy as he fulfills his domestic mandate.

With respect to (b), key international accomplishments include leading Canada’s delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and supporting Canada’s delegation to the Malmö International Forum. Key domestic accomplishments to date include co-convening the July 2021 federal summit on anti-Semitism; developing Canada’s pledges on Holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism, announced by Prime Minister Trudeau at the Malmö International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Anti-Semitism, October 2021; the promotion of Holocaust Education Month, November 2021; and domestic outreach. The special envoy’s extensive bilateral efforts included individual meetings with international counterparts and virtual events hosted by Canadian missions. Multilaterally, he worked with partners at the United Nations, European Union and Organization of American States to build awareness and support, including as a panelist at an event co-organized by Canada at the UN Human Rights Council on combatting anti-Semitism.

With respect to (c), a public report by the special envoy to the government is in the process of being prepared and will be made public once finalized.

With respect to (d), no office space has been assigned to the Honourable Irwin Cotler, as the government continues to work remotely due to the COVID 19 pandemic.

Question No.62—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

With regard to government projections on the impact of inflation: (a) what is the projected impact that inflation will have on the (i) real, (ii) nominal value of income to seniors who receive payments from the Canadian Pension Plan, Guaranteed Income Supplement, and Old Age Security; (b) has the government conducted any analysis on the impact that inflation will have on seniors living on fixed incomes and, if so, what are the details, including the findings of the analysis; (c) what are the government’s projections related to the projected buying power of seniors with (i) current, (ii) projected levels of inflation annually over the duration of the next 10 years; and (d) what inflation levels did the government use in its projections related to (c)?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to government projections on the impact of inflation, in response to (a), old age security, OAS, and Canada pension plan, CPP, benefits are indexed to inflation. To retain their value over time and to protect the purchasing power of beneficiaries, OAS and CPP benefits are adjusted in accordance with changes in the consumer price index, CPI. The Old Age Security Act and the Canada pension plan also each contain a guarantee ensuring that benefits can never be reduced, even in the event of a decline in the CPI.

OAS rate increases apply to all benefits under the OAS program. This includes the OAS pension, as well as the income-tested guaranteed income supplement, GIS, and the allowances. Rate increases are calculated four times per year, in January, April, July and October, using the all-items index from the CPI. Quarterly indexation allows for faster adjustment of OAS benefit amounts following cost-of-living increases.

CPP rate increases are calculated once a year using the CPI all-items index and come into effect each January. Therefore, the value of benefits in pay is fully protected and takes into account year-over-year increases in prices as measured by Statistics Canada.

OAS and CPP benefit adjustments in accordance with changes in the CPI ensure that the value of benefits seniors receive is fully protected. As a result, seniors can rest assured that there will be no loss in spending power as a result of the higher inflation experienced in late 2021.

In response to (b), the vast majority of seniors in Canada receive the OAS pension. Low-income OAS pensioners are eligible to receive the GIS. Both of these benefits are adjusted four times a year based on changes in the CPI. Indexation on a quarterly basis allows for faster adjustments to OAS benefits following increases in inflation.

The Office of the Chief Actuary, OCA, is responsible for providing appropriate checks and balances on the future costs of the different pension plans and social programs that fall under its responsibility, including for the OAS program and the CPP. Every three years, the OCA prepares actuarial reports for both the OAS program and the CPP, which includes analyses of OAS and CPP benefits.

In response to (c), the OCA provides short- and long-term projections of inflation levels. Their projections are based on Bank of Canada inflation targets, as well as other economic forecasts. In the OCA’s most recent actuarial reports of the OAS program and the CPP, released in 2020 and 2019 respectively, inflation was projected at 2% per year.

A new actuarial report on the CPP will be tabled in Parliament in fall 2022, which will include new inflation projections.

Question No.64—

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

With regard to the Order in Council SOR/2020-96 published on May 1, 2020 whereas it states that “the newly prescribed firearms are primarily designed for military or paramilitary purposes” and as the former Minister of Public Safety has re-stated this in the House of Commons of the over 1,500 newly prohibited firearms on numerous occasions: (a) which specific models that were prohibited on May 1, 2020 or since have been or are still in use by the Canadian Armed Forces; and (b) which specific models prohibited on May 1, 2020 or since are in use by any national military in the world?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, firearms are critical to allowing Canadian Armed Forces members to conduct its operations. All Canadian Armed Forces members operating firearms undergo rigorous training on the safe use of firearms and undergo routine assessments to ensure operational safety measures and protocol are always followed.

In response to (a), information on prohibited firearms with regard to the Order in Council SOR/2020-96, published on May 1, 2020, in use by the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy, and Royal Canadian Air Force can be found listed below.

Prohibited firearms in use by the Canadian Armed Forces broken down by model are as follows: C7A2, C20, C15.

For reasons of operational security, information on firearms used by the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command cannot be disclosed.

In response to (b), National Defence does not keep a centralized record of firearms used by foreign militaries and cannot provide details on the specific firearms used by other militaries.