Debates of Jan. 31st, 2022

Question No.263—

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

With regard to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's response to the request for designation of the Road and Rail Project in Pitt Meadows (IAAC reference # 82818) where he indicates that adverse effects will be managed through existing legislative mechanisms: which specific mechanisms is he referring to relating to diesel emissions exposure for residents?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada provided advice to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change with respect to the potential for existing legislative mechanisms to address adverse effects from the Pitt Meadows Road and rail project. The agency understands that diesel emissions resulting from the project would be managed through the following provincial and federal legislation: he Province of British Columbia’s Environmental Management Act, 2021, Part 6, Clean Air Provisions; the federal locomotive emissions regulations, 2017, under the Railway Safety Act; and the federal sulphur in diesel fuel regulations, 2002, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11 to 14, 16 to 18, 20 to 22, 24 to 27, 29, 31, 32, 34 to 38, 40, 43 to 56, 58, 59, 63, 68 to 73, 75, 76, 79 to 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 91, 92, 95, 97 to 101, 103 to 113, 115, 118, 120 to 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142 to 149, 151 to 154, 156, 160 to 162, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 172 to 176, 180 to 182, 184, 186 to 193, 195, 196, 198 to 209, 211, 213, 215 to 219, 221 to 224, 226 to 231, 233 to 238, 241 to 249, 251 to 254, 256 to 260, and 264 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

Question No.1—

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

With regard to government investments in housing, for each fiscal year since the introduction of the National Housing Strategy in 2017, broken down by province and territory: (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated to housing; (b) how many applications were received for (i) the National Housing Strategy (NHS) overall, (ii) the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, (iii) the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (iv) the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (v) the Rapid Housing Initiative under the projects stream, (vi) the Rapid Housing Initiative under the major cities stream, (vii) the Federal Lands Initiative, (viii) the Federal Community Housing Initiative, (ix) A Place to Call Home, (x) the Shared Equity Mortgage Providers Fund, (xi) the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive, (xii) the NHS’s Solutions Labs Initiative; (c) of the applications under (b), for each funding program and initiative, how many were accepted; (d) of the applications under (c), for each funding program and initiative, what was the amount of federal funding allocated or committed; (e) of the amounts in (d) allocated in the Province of Quebec, for each funding program and initiative, what is the breakdown per region; (f) of the amounts in (b)(v), what is the breakdown per project and per region; and (g) of the applications in (b)(v), what criteria were used for project selection?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2—

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

With regard to the $10-a-day national child care program that would provide universal access to all Canadian families as of 2026 and the bilateral agreements that the federal government has signed with the various provinces and territories regarding this program: (a) do the eight agreements already signed with British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec include language clauses to protect the rights of linguistic minorities in a minority situation; (b) how many spaces are reserved for francophone minorities and what percentage of the total number of spaces that the federal government plans to create are reserved for francophone minorities, broken down by province and territory; (c) of the $30 billion over five years to fund this national program in the government’s latest budget, how much of the budget, broken down by province and territory, is earmarked to meet the needs of francophone minorities; and (d) with regard to the agreement with Quebec specifically, is the agreement conditional on any kind of measure for English-language institutions?

(Return tabled)

Question No.4—

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

With regard to federal source revenue of post-secondary institutions in Quebec over the last 10 years, broken down by year: (a) what is the total revenue from federal sources, broken down by institution; (b) what share of the revenue in (a) came from (i) the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, (ii) Health Canada, (iii) the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, (iv) the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, (v) the Canada Foundation for Innovation, (vi) the Canada Research Chairs program, (vii) other federal sources; and (c) in detail, how does the funding system for research chairs operate and what variables determine the funding that each chair receives?

(Return tabled)

Question No.8—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

With regard to recruiting in the Canadian Armed Forces from January 2019 to the present, broken down by month: (a) how many individuals who showed an interest in joining the Regular Force or the Primary Reserve contacted the Canadian Forces Recruiting Centres or the Primary Reserve units, online or in person; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many were male and how many were female; (c) of the individuals in (a), how many began the enrollment process, broken down by sex; and (d) how many of the individuals in (c) completed the enrollment process, broken down by sex?

(Return tabled)

Question No.9—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

With regard to retention and attrition in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) what was the retention and attrition rate in the CAF, broken down by year since 2015; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) regular and reserve forces, (ii) diversity representation (women, Indigenous peoples, visible minorities, etc.)?

(Return tabled)

Question No.11—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

With regard to the Rapid Housing Initiative: (a) which organizations and communities in Northern Ontario applied for funding through the Initiative; (b) which organizations and communities in (a) received funding; (c) how much funding did each organization and community in (b) receive; and (d) what was the specific criteria or formula used to determine which applications were accepted and how much funding each successful applicant would receive?

(Return tabled)

Question No.12—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

With regard to long-term funding to the Centre for Equitable Library Access (CELA) and the National Network for Equitable Library Service (NNELS) for providing accessible reading services for those with reading disabilities: (a) how will the government ensure a permanent funding solution is implemented to support services that ensure equitable access to reading and other published works for Canadians with print disabilities; (b) does the government continue to believe there should be a full transition to industry, or does it now believe in a collaborative solution between industry and non-profits such as CELA and NNELS; (c) what data does the government have to show the transition cost of industry to take over the role that CELA and NNELS currently play in the industry providing materials for Canadians with print disabilities; (d) does the government have a commitment from industry that they are willing to make the necessary investments to take over this role; (e) knowing the cost of the transition, is the government committing to funding the transition to an industry led solution if industry is unwilling to commit to funding the transition; and (f) will the government commit to supporting smaller publishers unable to make this transition?

(Return tabled)

Question No.13—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

With regard to Canada’s National Housing Strategy: (a) how much money has been allocated to Calgary since 2017, broken down by year (i) through the Rapid Housing Initiative, (ii) through the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, (iii) through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (iv) through the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (v) in total through National Housing Strategy Funding Programs; (b) how much money is targeted to Calgary in total and through each of the National Housing Strategy Funding Programs in Budget 2021; (c) how many units have been supported in Calgary in total and through each of the funding programs since 2017; (d) how many units will be supported in Calgary in total and through each of the funding programs through Budget 2021; (e) how do the funding and units allocated to Calgary through the National Housing Strategy compare per capita to the funding and units allocated to other major Canadian cities, including Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Montreal; and (f) is any money being allocated towards adaptive reuse of Calgary’s vacant office spaces through the National Housing Strategy, and, if so, (i) through which funding programs, (ii) how much money is allocated, (iii) how many units will be created, (iv) when will units be created?

(Return tabled)

Question No.14—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

With regard to the Clean Fuel Standard and Clean Fuel Regulations: (a) what is the estimated cost of compliance for fossil fuel suppliers; (b) what is the difference between the cost of compliance per tonne of emissions reductions through the Clean Fuel Standard compared to the cost per tonne of emissions reductions through the government’s market-based carbon pricing plan; and (c) what is the estimated increase in price borne by liquid fuel consumers (industry users and households) under (i) the Clean Fuel Standard, (ii) the carbon pricing plan between now and 2050, (iii) cumulatively?

(Return tabled)

Question No.16—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

With regard to the government’s price on carbon: (a) how much has been paid by the average household each year since its introduction in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations; (b) how much has been returned to the average household in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations; (c) what has been the average reduction in emissions for households as a result of the price on carbon introduction in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations; and (d) what is the overall price for households per tonne of emissions reductions in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations?

(Return tabled)