Debates of April 17th, 2023

Question No.1275—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

With regard to section 19 of the Conflict of Interest Act: (a) what is the government's understanding of Parliament's requirement that "Compliance with this Act is a condition of a person's appointment or employment as a public office holder"; (b) does the understanding described in (a) vary with respect to (i) the Prime Minister, (ii) ministers and ministers of state, (iii) parliamentary secretaries, (iv) ministerial exempt staff, (v) other public office holders; and (c) what impact has the Prime Minister's multiple breaches of the act had on the government's ability to require ministers and parliamentary secretaries to abide by the act?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1276—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

With regard to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's February 14, 2023, recommendation "that the government consider mandating all ministers and parliamentary secretaries to receive training from the [Commissioner's] Office": (a) does the government accept the commissioner's recommendation and, if so, when will training (i) begin, (ii) be completed by; (b) on what date is the Prime Minister scheduled to receive the additional training; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why; and (d) what training have ministers, including the Prime Minister and parliamentary secretaries, received from the Commissioner's Office since November 4, 2015, broken down by (i) minister or parliamentary secretary, (ii) date of the training, (iii) subject-matter, topics or rules covered during the training?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1277—

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

With regard to compliance measures taken by the Canada Revenue Agency, broken down by income bracket and for each of the last five tax years: (a) what was the total number of filers in each income bracket; (b) what was the number of requests for additional documentation; (c) what was the number of audits conducted; (d) what was the number of criminal investigations instigated; (e) what is the rate per thousand tax filers represented by each action from (b) to (d); and (f) how much additional taxes were due as a result of each action from (b) to (d)?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1278—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

With regard to the government's National Housing Strategy, since November 4, 2015: (a) has any funding been provided through the strategy to (i) Encasa Financial Inc., (ii) Mainstreet Equity Corp., (iii) Pan Pacific Mercantile Group, (v) Atira Women's Resource Society, (vi) Southwest Properties limited, (vii) Saskatchewan First Nations Water Association Inc.; and (b) what are the details for each payment in (a), including the (i) recipient, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) funding stream under which the money was allocated, (v) project description or purpose of the funding?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1279—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

With regard to federal contracts given to Deloitte Canada for the purpose of creating a nation-wide system to track the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccinations: (a) what is the value of all contracts, including, for each, the (i) date of the contract, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) products to be delivered, (iv) timeline for delivery; (b) on what date was the nation-wide computer system rolled out; (c) with which provincial and territorial vaccination systems was the national system connected to; (d) what enhancements, improvements, and added functionality did the national system, created by Deloitte Canada, make; (e) what are the details of all national system outages, including, for each, the (i) duration of the outage, (ii) functionality and services impacted, (iii) costs incurred by the federal government to restore functionality, (iv) number of users impacted; and (f) does the government own the intellectual property for any products created under the terms of these contracts?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1280—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With regard to the Department of National Defence, and in reference to vaccine doses sorted by brand listed on the government's response to Order Paper question Q-1069: (a) what was the number of each type of injection, including anti-COVID-19 injections, administered to each member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF); (b) what was number of myocarditis cases that were reported after receiving the anti-COVlD-19 injections; (c) what are the details, including the numbers, of all non-serious and serious adverse events after receiving anti-COVID-19 injections; and (d) for each non-serious and serious event listed in (c), what is the breakdown by age of the CAF members?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1283—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

With regard to federal contracts awarded since fiscal year 2015-16, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) KPMG, (vi) Ernst and Young?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1284—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

With regard to services provided to Export Development Canada (EDC) by Accenture related to the administration of the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) program: (a) what are the details of all contracts given to Accenture, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) products to be delivered, (iv) timeline for delivery; (b) what is the total cost of external services procured for the administration of CEBA; (c) what is the total amount of internal resources at EDC committed to the administration of CEBA; and (d) what is the total amount of external services procured through Accenture for the (i) repayment of loans, (ii) collection of loans deemed ineligible after delivery, (iii) collection of fraudulently obtained loans?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, finally, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Rise in Hate Crimes

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I wish to inform the House that the Chair has received notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. member for Burnaby South to make a short statement.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to request an emergency debate concerning the very serious rise in hate crimes particularly targeting the Muslim and Jewish community. With the rise of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism on the heels of record-high levels of violence against these communities, we need the debate in this chamber to discuss how serious this is and debate solutions to the problems.

I want to cite specifically recent and brazen attacks at the Islamic Society of Markham, the Bagg Street Shul in Montreal and other communities across this country, where people are being targeted because of their faith and are receiving violent threats and violence against them directly.

Given that, I think all parliamentarians would agree the role of government is to ensure people are safe in their communities and are safe to practise their faith. Given that, again I urge this House to accept my request for an emergency debate to discuss the seriousness of the rise of hate and to discuss solutions that can make sure people are safe in our communities.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to signal the support of the Green Party of Canada for an emergency debate on the rise in hate crimes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We do not allow that. We will not have a debate on this.

I thank the hon. member for Burnaby South for his intervention. After discussion with the Speaker, he is not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

Social Media Content

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The Chair has received notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Lethbridge.

I invite the hon. member for Lethbridge to make a short statement.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House in order to make a request with regard to an emergency debate concerning revelations that the government has pressured social media platforms to edit or remove content that it considered embarrassing. These attempts at what can fairly be described as government censorship of the news, and the Internet more generally, came to public attention through a response that my colleague, the member for Niagara West, put forward in an OPQ.

The response, which has been tabled in the House of Commons, reveals that the government pressured social media platforms a total of 214 times over a 24-month time period and that this pressure was applied simply because the government did not want this information made public or it felt embarrassed by this information.

We know that there were many times when the platforms were able to successfully push back. However, we also know that Bill C-11 is currently in the Senate; if it should pass, it will actually legislate the government's ability to engage in this type of censorship going forward. One can imagine just how scary this is for many Canadians who count on the fact that we have a charter in this country that protects their freedom of speech, and therefore, freedom to access information that they wish to listen to or watch or access online. Therefore, given that we have now seen it come to light that the government applied pressure 214 times, we would ask that the House be able to engage in a debate with regard to this important matter.

I acknowledge that the Chair normally affords a wide latitude for contributions during the budget debate, which is the current debate taking place here today. I recognize that this type of request might not normally be granted under the emergency debate opportunity. However, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that these issues touch upon one of our fundamental freedoms, which is freedom of speech, and further, that censorship of the news and Internet is decidedly not an economic question, as the budget is. Therefore, it could not necessarily be addressed through financial initiatives.

To suggest that this issue can simply be raised within the context of the current debate seems perhaps reckless, and so I would respectfully allow my question to stand: Could we be granted an emergency debate with regard to the government's decision to apply pressure 214 times to social media platforms across this country?