Debates of Sept. 15th, 2025

Question No.184—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With regard to Canadian counter tariffs and other countermeasures put in place by the government since March 4, 2025: (a) how much money has been collected, in total, and broken down by (i) month, (ii) countermeasure; and (b) how much of the money collected has been allocated to help for workers in total and broken down by program?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as of May 30, the government has collected approximately $1.76 billion in revenue from countertariffs imposed on imports from the U.S. This figure is net of remissions and other relief programs, i.e., relieving provisions in chapters 98 and 99 of the customs tariff, Canada Border Services Agency duties relief program and duty drawback program.

With regard to (i), monthly surtax net amounts were $397 million in March 2025, $709 million in April 2025 and $654 million in May 2025.

With regard to (ii), surtax net amounts by countermeasure were $1.06 billion, effective March 4, U.S. surtax order 2025; $685 million, effective March 13, U.S. surtax order, steel and aluminum; and $21 million, effective April 9, U.S. surtax order, motor vehicles.

Please note that figures do not add due to rounding. Further, figures do not match exactly to what was publicly reported in the May 2025 Fiscal Monitor as the statistics are only accurate as of that moment in time, due to continual corrections/adjustments made by importers during the accounting period following the release of their goods.

With regard to (b), in March 2025, in response to the continued threat and introduction of foreign tariffs, the government announced temporary employment insurance, EI, measures as a direct support to help more workers access the income support that they need. Specifically, this included the following.This included waiving the waiting period so that all EI claimants receive benefits for the first week of unemployment. This measure is in effect for a six-month period from March 30 to October 11.

This included suspending the treatment of monies paid on separation, e.g., severance, vacation, to allow claimants to receive EI benefits sooner. This measure is in effect for a six-month period from March 30 to October 11. This included ajusting the EI regional unemployment rates upward by one percentage point, to a maximum of 13.1%, with no region below 7.1%. This measure reduces the hours required to qualify for regular benefits to no more than 630 hours and increases the number of weeks of entitlement to those benefits by up to four additional weeks. This measure is in effect for a three-month period from April 6 to July 12.

These temporary changes apply to all EI claims established during the period in which the measures are in effect. At the time of implementation, the cost of these temporary measures was estimated at $1,096.6 million over two years, 2025-26 and 2026-27. It is too early to know what the final costs of these measures will be. Note that temporary measures are available to all eligible EI claimants and not only those affected by tariffs.

These measures were in addition to the introduction on March 7 of temporary one-year flexibilities to the EI work-sharing program to increase its availability to workers and employers impacted directly or indirectly by tariffs. The work-sharing program provides EI benefits to employees who agree to temporarily work a reduced work week when their employer faces a decrease in business activity beyond their control, thereby helping to avoid layoffs.

From March 30 to June 7, 506 EI work-sharing agreements were approved with about 15,330 employees participating in these agreements. Approximately $92.4 million in EI work-sharing benefits has been paid to employees over this period.

The provision of additional EI benefits to claimants is a cost to the employment insurance operating account.

Question No.190—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

With regard to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada: for each of the president and vice-presidents, what are the details of all travel claim expenses in each instance of travel for which airfare expenses were greater than $0, incurred in each of 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, including, for each instance of applicable travel, (i) the travel start date, (ii) the travel end date, (iii) the total travel expense amount, (iv) the origin city, (v) the destination city, (vi) any cities or locations travelled to, other than the origin or destination cities, for which any expenses were claimed, including dates, times, and transportation method, (vii) the purpose of travel to each location, including the name, itinerary, and duration dates of any events, conferences, or other official gatherings attended, (viii) the dates, times, locations, purposes, and attendees for each meeting attended during travel, (ix) the total days of per diems claimed, (x) the daily per diem rate, (xi) the total amount of per diems claimed, (xii) the date, type, purpose, and amount spent on ground transportation, per use, (xiii) the location, per-night rate, and amount spent on accommodations, per night, (xiv) the daily itinerary items for each day of travel for which per diems were claimed?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the Government of Canada’s measure to enhance transparency, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, IAAC, proactively discloses expenditures related to travel and hospitality for senior management.

In addition, IAAC proactively discloses expenditures for travel through the annual report on travel, hospitality and conference expenditures.

Question No.193—

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

With regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, broken down by year: (a) since January 1, 2006, how many individuals who were credibly threatened by foreign actors have been contacted under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's Duty to Warn policy; (b) how many of the individuals in (a) were members of Parliament; (c) how many of the members of Parliament were provided police protection; and (d) what was the cost of providing police protection to the individuals in (a)?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), to ensure the safety of our members and those we protect, as well as to ensure the integrity of security measures and operations, the RCMP does not disclose information that could expose specific details about any individual or group of individuals who were credibly threatened by foreign or domestic actors and contacted under the RCMP's duty to warn policy.

With regard to (b) and (c), under s. 14(1)(e)(v) of the RCMP Regulations, the RCMP is responsible for providing protection to “any other Canadian citizen or permanent resident … who is designated by the Minister [of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness] for the period designated by the Minister.” This includes the protection of members of Parliament and their immediate families. The extent of the protection provided is at the discretion of the RCMP, based on their assessment of the threat or risk to the security of the person. In the case of a credible threat, the RCMP would revise its assessment and make the necessary changes to the level of protection being provided for the member of Parliament under threat. This is a separate process from the duty to warn.

To ensure the safety of our members and those we protect, as well as to ensure the integrity of security measures and operations, the RCMP does not disclose information that could expose specific details about any particular protectee or the number of personnel assigned to protect any given individual.

With regard to (d), to ensure the safety of our members and those we protect, as well as to ensure the integrity of security measures and operations, the RCMP does not disclose information that could expose specific details about any particular protective event or about the number of personnel assigned to protect any given protectee. As such, specific breakdowns of costs cannot be provided as they may indicate how many resources were deployed on individual assignments. Furthermore, the RCMP does not disclose information related to protective measures or information that could identify the level of protection that any one individual receives.

Question No.197—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

With regard to the Royal Canadian Air Force: (a) how many filled fighter pilot positions were there in each year from 2020 to 2025; (b) how many fighter pilot positions in total were available to fill in each year from 2020 to 2025; (c) how many combat ready CF-18 flying positions were available to fill in each year from 2020 to 2025; (d) how many flying positions were available that were not combat ready (i.e. Squadron 410 Operational Training Unit, Squadron 419, wings, Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment, etc.) in each year from 2020 to 2025; (e) how many combat ready flying positions were available on each operational squadron and wing in each year from 2020 to 2025; (f) how many fighter pilot positions were available to fill each year from 2015 to 2025; (g) how many combat ready fighter pilots were released each year from 2020 to 2025; (h) how many fighter pilots in total were released annually from 2020 to 2025; (i) what are the estimated projections for 2025 to 2034 for (i) filled fighter pilot positions, (ii) fighter pilot positions, (iii) combat ready CF-18 and CF-35A flying positions, (iv) flying positions that are not combat ready, (v) combat ready flying positions available on each operational squadron and wing; (j) what is the estimated production rate of combat ready fighter pilots for each year from 2025 to 2034; (k) what is the estimated attrition rate for fighter pilots for each year from 2025 to 2034; (l) how many fighter pilot positions and personnel in the Royal Canadian Air Force are pre-Fighter Pilot Course students; (m) what is the Trained Effective Strength or operational functional point for fighter pilots; (n) what is the combat ready point for fighter pilots; (o) where and when does the combat ready point for fighter pilots take place; (p) what is the minimum, maximum, and mean time, in months, between recruitment and combat ready status for fighter pilots; (q) how many fighter pilots are greater than TIP 2 in CF-18 flying positions; (r) how many fighter pilots are two-ship leads in the CF-18 flying positions; (s) how many fighter pilots are four-ship leads in the CF-18 flying positions; (t) as of June 16, 2025, how many fighter pilots are (i) combat ready, (ii) non-combat ready, (iii) wingman, (iv) fighter electronic warfare instructors, (v) fighter weapons instructors; (u) are fighter pilot students (e.g. At Squadrons 410 and 419) included in fighter pilot positions Preferred Manning Level or Trained Effective Strength; and (v) how many fighter pilots are combat ready on the CF-35A?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, fighter force is continuously recruiting, training and releasing pilots through normal attrition. Nevertheless, Canada faces recruiting and retaining challenges in relation to fighter pilots common to all its allies.

As of June 16, the RCAF had a staffing rate of 66% for pilots at frontline fighter squadrons. Detailed information regarding pilot numbers is considered sensitive as it can provide adversaries with information about CF-18 readiness and the broader capabilities of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which could be injurious to the defence of Canada and North America.

As the RCAF prepares to transition from the CF-18 to the CF-35A, work is ongoing to meet appropriate fighter pilot staffing levels. For example, the RCAF has expanded the employment of reserve fighter pilots and has directed qualified fighter pilots in headquarters staff positions to maintain their CF-18 flying qualifications.

The RCAF continues to analyze and adjust its pilot training courses to increase numbers of trained pilots and to reduce attrition. The RCAF has significantly reduced the time pilots need to wait to proceed to the next phases of course training in the past several years. In fiscal year 2024-25, wait times for phases I and II of pilot training decreased and are now two and three months respectively, which is the time it takes to effectively move personnel from one training location to another.

To increase the pool of pilot candidates, the RCAF has developed targeted recruitment and retention strategies. For example, the RCAF attractions team participated in more than 115 in-person events and over 230 virtual events in 2024 including air shows, exhibitions, career fairs and sport events. This complements wider Canadian Armed Forces recruitment efforts that showcase existing recruiting allowances, pay incentives and subsidized education programs.

Additionally, National Defence recently finished implementing a revised pilot pay scale to support retention efforts. The pay scale compensates pilots based on their experience and qualifications through the introduction of a new skills and competencies-oriented pay system.

Finally, the RCAF continues to engage with our allies to share information on how to mitigate this common challenge.

Question No.201—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

With regard to Canadian fish stock assessments and stock advisory committees on commercial species, broken down by specific species: (a) what organizations, stakeholders, First Nations and environmental non-governmental organizations have observer status; (b) what organizations, stakeholders, First Nations and environmental non-governmental organizations have stakeholder status; (c) what is total length of time between when scientific and harvester data is received and when a quota decision is made; (d) what changes in science methodology have been made since 2015; (e) what changes in methodology to incorporate fish harvester logbook data into assessments, outlined by species, have been made since 2015; and (f) what are the net changes in the number of stakeholder seats and environmental non-governmental organizations seats at stock advisory, broken down by species and year since 2015?

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), most advisory committees do not have a formally defined observer status or stakeholder status. For this reason, the department cannot provide the requested information on individuals or organizations that have observer or stakeholder status in advisory committees.

With regard to (c), this information is not tracked by the department, and therefore the question cannot be answered in the manner requested.

With regard to (d), this is not information that is held by DFO in a way that could support an answer in the format requested. Stock assessment methodologies evolve as new tools, analytical techniques and data streams become available.

With regard to (e), this is not information that is held by DFO in a way that could support an answer in the format requested.

With regard to (f), the department does not track the specific changes in advisory committee membership or participation over time in a centralized system that would facilitate reporting. An answer would require a manual search of documents that would exceed the time allowed to answer this question.

Question No.207—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

With regard to Parks Canada land currently under lease to the municipality of Smiths Falls, Ontario: (a) does an archaeological assessment already exist for the leased Parks Canada lands adjacent to the Rideau Canal within the Smiths Falls municipal boundary, and, if so, can the assessment be shared with the municipality, in its capacity as a leaseholder; (b) what triggers the requirement for an archaeological assessment, including for low-impact projects, including, but not limited to, pathway installation and landscaping; (c) who determines the scope of an archaeological assessment; (d) is the municipality, in general or in its capacity as a leaseholder, responsible for conducting and funding this work; (e) what are the review timelines and implications if archaeological resources are identified; (f) what federal policies govern the use, enhancement or activation of Parks Canada lands under lease to municipalities; (g) what types of improvements are permitted on Parks Canada lands under lease to municipalities, including, but not limited to, permanent structures, landscape enhancements and events; and (h) who within Parks Canada holds the final decision-making authority for development proposals on leased lands?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), some portions of the Parks Canada-administered lands along the Rideau Canal in Smiths Falls have been subject to archaeological assessment. More detail about specific properties and types of agreements is required to provide a full response. A manual search of non-digitized records would also be required. Parks Canada has determined that producing and validating a comprehensive response is not feasible within the allotted time frame and could result in the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information. Assessments that have been conducted can be shared with the municipality.

With regard to (b), any activities that include soil disturbance trigger an archaeological assessment.

With regard to (c), the scope of the assessment is determined by the archaeologist conducting the assessment, based on the scope and potential impacts of the proposed project.

With regard to (d), the municipality, as the proponent of the project, is responsible for the funding, as well as for engaging a professional archaeologist to conduct this work. All archaeological work on Parks Canada land requires a Parks Canada research and collection permit and is reviewed by Parks Canada’s archaeology team.

With regard to (e), the review timelines and implications vary depending on the scope of the project and the nature and extent of the archaeological resources.

With regard to (f), Parks Canada’s standard on realty agreements outside of national park boundaries, which includes requirements set out in the Treasury Board “Directive on the Management of Real Property” and the “Rideau Canal and Merrickville Blockhouse National Historic Sites of Canada Management Plan, 2022”, govern the use, enhancement or activation of Parks Canada lands under lease to municipalities.

With regard to (g), the national parks of Canada land use planning regulations provide a general framework for consideration of the authorization of any improvements in Parks Canada-protected spaces. Improvements of any type on Parks Canada lands under lease to municipalities may be considered on a case-by-case basis but can only be undertaken in accordance with an authorization or permit issued by the appropriate authorized superintendent responsible for the protected space in question.

As per the national parks of Canada land use planning regulations, the director of Ontario waterways holds the delegated authority to permit or decline development applications on Parks Canada lands adjacent to the Rideau Canal within the Smiths Falls municipal boundary and exercises that authority in consultation with the appropriate internal and external subject matter experts.

Question No.208—

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

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) since 1914, how many Regular Force members and Reserve Force members have lost their lives in non-combat roles during peacetime in Canada; and (b) since 2013, how many Regular Force members and Reserve Force members have died by suicide?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since 1914, approximately 2,000 Canadian armed forces members have lost their lives in non-combat roles during peacetime in Canada. This information is based on a manual search, and some older records may vary due to incomplete information in archives.

From 2013-2024, the Department of National Defence has recorded that a total of 177 regular force members and 36 reserve force members have died by suicide.

Since reserve force members receive much of their health care in the provincial system, the cause of death, including a confirmation of whether it was a suicide, is sometimes not reported to the Canadian Armed Forces. As a result, despite efforts to retrieve data concerning all deaths from suicide, the Department of National Defence may not have full data on reserve force suicide mortality.

As part of National Defence’s suicide prevention strategy, employees and members holding supervisory positions have been given direction in three distinct areas of focus: prevention, intervention and postvention. This ensures that the Canadian Armed Forces continue to reduce stigma; educate, engage and support members at all levels; and ensure that leaders facilitate awareness of, and access to, education and supports.

Question No.210—

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

With regard to government measures to open agricultural markets in Southeast Asia to Canadian products: what is the quantity and dollar value of Canadian agricultural products that the government projects will be exported from Canada for each of the next five years, broken down by product and country?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, does not possess the projected information requested related to Southeast Asia.

Question No.213—

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

With regard to the government's proposed capital gains tax increase which was cancelled in March 2025: (a) prior to the cancellation, how much was spent by the Canada Revenue Agency on implementing the increase, in total and broken down by type of expenditure; (b) prior to the cancellation, how many tax filers paid extra tax as a result of the proposed increase and what was the amount of extra tax paid; (c) of the extra tax paid in (b), how much has been refunded to date and to how many tax filers; (d) why did the Canada Revenue Agency continue to collect this tax after it became clear in 2024 that it would not receive parliamentary approval; (e) is it the position of the Canada Revenue Agency that it can take action, with the full knowledge that Parliament does not approve and, if so, who at the Agency is responsible for this position; and (f) if the position in (e) is not the Agency's position, why did it act that way in this instance?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, what follows is the response from the CRA as of June 17, 2025, the date of the question.

With regard to part (a), the CRA is unable to respond, as its financial system does not capture the information in the manner requested.

With regard to part (b), prior to cancellation, the CRA received 1,120 T2 returns declaring additional taxable capital gains directly related to the proposed increase in the capital gains inclusion rate. The total additional amount of taxable capital gains reported on the Schedule 1 forms was approximately $8.9 million. The CRA is not able to confirm whether incremental tax associated with capital gains reported was paid, either in full or partially, as taxpayers normally pay tax liability based on their total tax obligation.

With regard to part (c), all 1,120 returns have been adjusted to reflect the original inclusion rate.

With regard to parts (d), (e) and (f), as noted in chapter 18 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it is the long-standing practice of Canadian governments to put tax measures into effect as soon as the notices of the ways and means motions, or NWMMs, on which they are based are tabled in the House of Commons.

The proposed changes were tabled in a notice of ways and means motion on September 23, 2024. As such, in November 2024, the CRA indicated its intent to begin its administration of these changes on the basis of the NWMM and took steps to update its forms and systems. Generally, the CRA will not change its administration position until the government formally indicates its intention has changed.

On January 31, 2025, the government announced that it intended to defer the implementation of the change to the capital gains inclusion rate. As such, the CRA reverted to administering the currently enacted capital gains inclusion rate of one-half. On March 21, 2025, the Government of Canada subsequently announced that it does not intend to proceed with a proposed increase to the capital gains inclusion rate.

Question No.215—

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

With regard to grants and contributions provided by Heritage Canada during the 2024-25 fiscal year: (a) what was the total (i) number, (ii) value, of grants and contributions; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by federal riding and by census metropolitan area; (c) what was the total (i) number, (ii) value, of grants and contributions provided to entities outside of Canada; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by country?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i) and (a)(ii), the total number of grants and contributions provided by Heritage Canada during the 2024-25 fiscal year was 28,129 and the total value was $1,859,294,977.

With regard to (b), the departmental financial system does not track transfer payment information by federal riding and/or census metropolitan area.

With regard to (c), two payments were made to entities outside of Canada for a total value of $8,034,896.

With regard to (d), one payment was in France, for TV5 Monde, in the amount of $7,945,511, and one was in Germany, for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, in the amount of $89,385.

Question No.216—

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

With regard to measures taken by the government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to implement the Online Streaming Act (formerly Bill C-11): (a) what are the total expenditures to date related to the implementation of any measures contained in the Act, in total and broken down by related measures and by type of expenditure; (b) how many employees or full-time equivalents have been assigned to work on items related to measures contained in the Act; (c) how many new employees had to be hired in order to implement or maintain measures contained in the Act; (d) what are the government's projections as to how much it will cost each year to maintain the systems or items mandated by the Act; (e) how much has been collected in revenue from streaming services to date as a result of the Act; and (f) of the money collected, how much has been distributed to date, broken down by type of recipient?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Heritage was responsible for the research and policy work underlying the development of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, including its passage through the parliamentary process. However, the Department of Canadian Heritage is not responsible for the implementation of the framework once the parliamentary process is complete. The implementation of the framework is the responsibility of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC.

With regard to (a), the Online Streaming Act amended the Broadcasting Act. As of March 2025, the CRTC’s total expenditures to implement these amendments have been approximately $15.2 million ($11.9 million in salaries and $3.3 million in operational and maintenance costs), of which $9 million was spent in fiscal year 2024-25.

With regard to (b), employees or full-time equivalents are not assigned to work specifically on items related to measures contained in the Online Streaming Act, as they are interconnected with other provisions in the Broadcasting Act. All the measures contained in the two bills are applied jointly and concurrently.

With regard to (c), the CRTC has hired 59 full-time equivalents to implement and maintain measures contained in the Online Streaming Act. These employees also work on maintaining the measures contained in the Broadcasting Act.

With regard to (d), the CRTC projects that the cost to maintain the systems and items mandated by the Online Streaming Act will be approximately $9.7 million annually.

With regard to (e), as a result of the Online Streaming Act, the CRTC has invoiced streaming service fee payers $19.9 million for the 2024-25 fiscal year and $22.9 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year so far.

With regard to (f), the CRTC uses a cost recovery model wherein the fees it collects from streaming services are used to cover the costs of applying the regulatory framework established through the Online Streaming Act. These funds are not considered revenues and therefore are not distributed. Once fully implemented, the Online Streaming Act will see streaming services make financial contributions directly to the Canadian media and broadcasting ecosystem.

Question No.219—

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

With regard to the government's Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program: (a) is a site related to the program operational on Shoemaker Street in Kitchener, Ontario, and, if so, on what date did it become operational and what is being done at the site; (b) which department or agency authorized the site's operation; (c) what organizations are in contract to oversee the site; (d) did the government enter into a contract with Colt Canada to receive goods and services regarding the program, and, if so, what is the summary of the terms of this contract; (e) what is the total volume and type of the firearms and magazines received at that site as of June 17, 2025; (f) is the destruction of firearms occurring on site; (g) what is the total dollar value of the items (i) surrendered, (ii) destroyed, at the Shoemaker Street site; (h) how many dealers have disposed of weapons; (i) has the government paused intake at this site since it became operational, and, if so, what are the details of each instance, including the dates it was paused and the reason for the pause; (j) what compensation rates are being offered for each type of surrendered firearms, firearm parts and accessories, including any per-unit incentives beyond previously published rates; (k) how many participating dealers received compensation to date; (l) for dealers who have not yet been paid, when is compensation expected; (m) does Colt Canada have a relationship with the program through contracted goods or services, technical support, compensation, memorandums of understanding, bids on requests for proposals or equivalents; (n) has the government conducted any audits, oversight or verification of items being surrendered, to prevent fraud or abuse of the program (e.g. large-volume shipments of magazines), and, if so, what are the details; (o) what communications strategy has the government undertaken to inform the public of the buyback site in Kitchener, including its operational status; and (p) is Colt Canada currently under contract to assist with the federal firearms buyback program in any capacity, and, if so, what are the details of each contract, including (i) the date, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the amount, (iv) the description of the goods or services provided, (v) whether the contract was awarded through a sole-sourced or competitive bidding process?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, regarding parts (a) to (d) and (p) to (v) of the question, due to security and safety issues, the names and locations of the contractors involved in the assault-style firearms compensation program, ASFCP, cannot be disclosed.

On December 7, 2023, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, launched a competitive process to procure services for the collection, storage, verification, validation, transportation and destruction of firearms in support of a compensation program for assault-style firearms that were prohibited.

On September 26, 2024, PSPC awarded a contract for one year, with a one-year extension option, for the business component of the ASFCP. The total value of this contract is $9.04 million. The name of the company will remain confidential for security reasons.

With regard to parts (e) to (m) of the question, the ASFCP is a voluntary program, and as of April 30, 2025, 190 businesses had claimed over 12,000 firearms and over 14,000 parts and components for compensation. As of July 3, $13.04 million in compensation has been paid.

The ASFCP provides a way for firearms businesses to safely dispose of their prohibited firearms and receive compensation. Firearms businesses can also dispose of firearms through other means, for example, deactivation without compensation, export or return to the manufacturer. Some businesses have privileges on their licences allowing them to retain firearms for purposes such as sale to police.

The compensation amounts for firearms prohibited in May 2020 were determined following in-depth research, including a review of manufacturer prices, Canadian dealer and retailer prices, foreign retailer prices, pricing guidebooks and auction listings; and consultation with the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, CSAAA, which served as an intermediary with businesses and confirmed that compensation amounts reasonably reflected what businesses may have paid in 2020 for affected ASFs.

Further information on compensation amounts is provided in the “List of firearms: for businesses” on Canada.ca.

As firearms are processed, compensation will be issued to remaining participating businesses. As stated on the program’s website, once firearms have been received, payment will be issued within 45 business days, provided that all required validations are successfully completed and no additional review is required.

Regarding parts (n) to (o) of the question, verification and validation activities are performed on firearms as they are received in order to ensure that claims meet the terms and conditions of the program, that is, that firearms are legally owned by licensed businesses to which they are properly registered. Firearms are also validated at the facility to ensure that firearms, devices, parts and components received at the facility match what was submitted in the claim, including quantities, makes, models and serial numbers, if applicable; firearms and devices are “complete” and assembled in order to be eligible for compensation; parts and components are in their original packaging; and all deactivation and shipment records submitted as part of the claim are accurate.

The government has communicated regarding the ASFCP for businesses through a variety of channels, including publicly available information online as well as communications to licensed firearms businesses via the Canadian firearms program, as administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Public Safety Canada continues to make progress towards a launch of the program for individuals, details on which will be shared in due course.

Question No.224—

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

With regard to the Public Health Agency of Canada and the government’s future health approach: (a) which agency, entities or ministries are involved in (i) the pandemic prevention, preparedness and response protocols, (ii) the One Health approach; (b) what is the One Health approach and where or how did it originate; (c) which bills are currently tabled or have been passed which would operationalize (i) Canada’s pandemic prevention, preparedness and response protocols, (ii) the One Health approach in Canada, (iii) any other World Health Organization or United Nations international health or pandemic treaties or agreements; (d) have staff already been hired or will staff be hired and trained to integrate the One Health approach into Canadian policy and legislation; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, (i) where and under which department or agency will these employees work, (ii) where are these positions posted, (iii) what are the hiring criteria for these staff, (iv) who selects the staff, (v) how many positions exist or will be created; (f) what is the budget allocation to integrate the One Health approach; (g) are there training programs for nongovernmental professionals in One Health and, if so, where are they located; and (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, (i) how are the training programs funded, (ii) what are their goals, (iii) who instructs these courses, (iv) what are the requirements to instruct these courses, (v) how did the instructors obtain these requirements?