With regard to Public Safety Canada’s Firearms Buyback Program for recently prohibited firearms: (a) how much was spent to develop the information technology required to administer the program; and (b) what are the details of all contracts signed in relation to the program, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the amount, (iv) a description of the goods or services, (v) the duration, (vi) whether the contract was awarded through a competitive bid or sole-source process? With regard to the Dimensions program: (a) what is the size of the current team that leads the program; (b) what are the details of the team that leads the program, including (i) the name of all the positions of the current team, (ii) whether any positions have been cut since its inception, (iii) the dates for any positions that were cut; (c) what are the details of the program’s financing, including (i) the cost to administer the program annually, (ii) whether there have been any financial cuts to the program since its inception, (iii) the dates of any cuts, if any; (d) what are all of the accomplishments of the program since its inception; (e) what third-party international organizations have recognized the program since its inception; and (f) what are the details of any external reviews of the program, including (i) the start date of the review, (ii) the end date of the review, (iii) who led the review, (iv) the structure of the review, (v) who specifically was consulted in the review, including, but not limited to, the Chief Science Advisor, granting councils, research networks, research organizations, and all researchers or experts? With regard to military housing and the Canadian Forces Housing Agency, in total and broken down by location: (a) what is the total number of rental housing units of military housing; (b) how many units are currently (i) occupied, (ii) unoccupied and available for rent, (iii) unoccupied and unavailable for rent; (c) outside of routine maintenance, how many units are currently in need of repairs, renovations or upgrades; (d) what are the details of the actions required in (c), including, for each, the description of what is needed and the projected completion date; (e) how many units are currently considered to be in disrepair; and (f) how many of the units in disrepair are currently (i) occupied, (ii) available for rent, (iii) unoccupied and unavailable for rent? With regard to the Canada Dental Benefit, broken down by federal electoral district since the program’s inception: (a) what is the total number of applications (i) received, (ii) approved; (b) what is the total dollar value of payments delivered to eligible applicants; and (c) how many children, in total, have been helped by the program? With regard to the measures in Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit), concerning GST credits, broken down by federal electoral district: (a) what is the total number of eligible Canadians who saw their GST credits double; and (b) what is the total dollar value of additional GST payments delivered to payees in (a)? With regard to Canada’s participation in the World Health Organization's (WHO) proposed international treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response: (a) what is the government’s formal position with regard to a proposed legally binding international treaty, and why; (b) what are the details of all documents the government has provided to the WHO or the World Health Assembly (WHA) related to the treaty or the International Health Regulations since July 2022, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number; (c) what are the details of Canada’s submission or contribution to the 76th WHA meeting with regard to strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies; (d) which elected and unelected officials led Canada’s delegation at the 2023 WHA meeting, including the number of people in the delegations and their titles and positions; (e) what are the details of Canada’s contributions to the WHO’s Executive Board since May 2022, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number; (f) what meetings, including the Global Affairs Canada call on July 11, 2022, have been and will be scheduled for public consultation with Canadians; (g) for each public consultation meeting in (f), what are the details of the meetings, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) names and titles of the attendees, (iii) purpose of the meeting, (iv) agenda items, (v) summary of what occurred at the meeting, including anything that was agreed to; (h) does the government have any plans to undertake a formal and public review of Canada’s whole-of-government pandemic response to inform future national pandemic planning, and, if so, what are the details; (i) what input fed into and/or informed the government’s rationale for recommending that the WHO include “other global health threats”, including climate change impacts in the scope of a pandemic instrument; and (j) what criteria did the government envision the WHO would use to determine when climate change impacts would reach a pandemic threshold? With regard to Canada's participation in the First Movers Coalition (FMC): (a) what will be the specific obligations and actions undertaken to fulfill its commitments as a partner of the FMC; (b) what are the projected annual expenditures or costs to the government as a result of the government's participation in the (i) current fiscal year, (ii) next fiscal year; (c) what are the details of any policy measures that have been or will be implemented as part of the FMC; (d) what private sector consultation or engagement has the government undertaken thus far, and what are the results of that consultation; (e) has the government signed any contracts or agreements related to its FMC membership or FMC-related commitments, and, if so, what are the details of any such contracts or agreements, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) summary of terms, (iii) vendor, if applicable, (iv) financial value, if applicable, (v) titles of signatories to the agreement or contract; and (f) what FMC meetings have taken place or are currently planned, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) list of invitees, (iii) meeting purpose, (iv) location, (v) agenda? With regard to Canadian Armed Forces Reconstitution Directive released in October 2022: what are the details of all briefing notes, placemats, or analysis reports the government has in relation to the directive, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of document, (iii) title, (iv) sender, (v) recipient, (vi) file number? With regard to bi-annual compliance reporting required by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) since April 2015, for each Designated Learning Institution (DLI) in Canada, excluding those located in Quebec: (a) what is the total number of international students reported, broken down by DLI, bi-annual reporting period, and student status (i.e. academic break, academic suspension, authorized leave, deferred enrolment, full-time studies, no longer registered/enrolled, no show, not started, part-time studies, program/degree completed, unknown/no record); (b) has IRCC identified any non-genuine or non-compliant international students as a result of the information collected through DLI’s bi-annual compliance reporting; and (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what is the total number of instances of non-genuine or non-compliant international students identified, broken down by DLI and bi-annual reporting period? With regard to funding provided by the government to organizations for the purpose of advocacy, since 2019, and broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) what was the total amount of funding on advocacy, broken down by year; (b) what are the details of all government programs that fund advocacy or similar activities, such as lobbying, including, for each, the (i) name of the program, (ii) purpose, (iii) annual budget; (c) what are the details of all funding provided through the programs in (b), including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) purpose of the funding; and (d) what are the details of all funding for advocacy or similar types of activities that were not included in the response to (c), including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) purpose of the funding, (v) program under which funding was provided? With regard to the ban on the use of TikTok on government devices: (a) what evidence was used as the basis for the ban; (b) who approved the ban; (c) how many security breaches involving TikTok is the government aware of, and what are the details of each breach, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) summary; and (d) what is the timeline for when the ban will either expire or be up for renewal? With regard to the travel by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the accompanying delegation to the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development in late August 2023: (a) what are the details of the trip, including the (i) names and titles of all attendees, (ii) costs associated with the trip, in total, and broken down by each individual that incurred expenses and the type of expense; and (b) what are the details of each meeting attended by the minister or any member of the Canadian delegation, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) names and titles of attendees, (iv) purpose of the meeting? With regard to the Canadian Forces Housing Agency (CFHA): (a) how many people have applied for, but have not yet been placed into, military housing, as of October 24, 2023; (b) within the current 2023-24 fiscal year, how many applicants to the CFHA waited (i) between one and 30 days, (ii) between 31 and 60 days, (iii) between 61 and 90 days, (iv) more than 90 days, between the date of application and the date of placement into military housing; and (c) during the (i) 2020-21, (ii) 2021-22, (iii) 2022-23, fiscal years, what was the greatest number of applicants on the waiting list on any one specific date? With regard to violent crimes and the firearms ban that prohibited certain firearms as of May 1, 2020: (a) in the last fiscal year, how many violent crimes, defined by Statistics Canada as “Crimes against the person involve the use or threatened use of violence against a person, including homicide, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and robbery”, involving firearms were committed with firearms that were included in the 2020 ban; (b) of the firearms in (a), (i) how many of the guns' origins could be traced via a serial number, (ii) how many guns' origins were traced back to the United States; and (c) how many violent crimes committed with firearms in the last fiscal year were committed by individuals without proper firearms licensing? With regard to Parks Canada expenditures: (a) how much money did Parks Canada spend on (i) gasoline, (ii) diesel fuel, in the last fiscal year; (b) what portion of the total in (a), in dollar amounts, was spent on (i) federal carbon taxes, (ii) provincial carbon taxes; (c) how much money did Parks Canada spend on building heating in the last fiscal year; (d) what portion of the total in (c), in dollar amounts, was spent on (i) federal carbon taxes, (ii) provincial carbon taxes; and (e) what are Parks Canada’s projections on how much more money the clean fuel regulations will add to their total expenditures on (i) gasoline, (ii) diesel fuel, (iii) building heating? With regard to the Mortgage Loan Insurance Select program offered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, since 2016: (a) what are the details of all projects completed as a result of the program, including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) number of units, (iii) value of the project, (iv) date of application, (v) date of approval; and (b) what was the number of units completed each year as a result of the program, including the current year to date? With regard to expenditures by the government on cannabis intended for veterans: (a) what were the total expenditures on cannabis intended for veterans, broken down by year for the past five years; and (b) what are the details of all contracts that the government has for cannabis intended for veterans since 2018, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value, (iv) amount of cannabis provided? With regard to the design selection of the National Monument to Canada’s Mission in Afghanistan: (a) what surveys did the government conduct to solicit feedback on the monument’s design that were conducted (i) online, (ii) in-person, (iii) by mail; (b) on what date was each survey in (a) conducted; (c) how many respondents to surveys in (a) were (i) veterans of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, (ii) Canadian veterans, (iii) active service members in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), (iv) family members of CAF members or veterans, (v) family members of veterans who served in Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, (vi) members of the general public; (d) how was each survey in (a) communicated with potential respondents, especially with veterans of Canada’s Mission in Afghanistan, their families, and current CAF members; (e) what were the costs associated with each survey in (a), broken down by survey; and (f) what was the reason given by the government as to why survey results would be used to select the monument over the advice of the commemorative advisory committee? With regard to sexual misconduct complaints within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) for calendar years 2022 and 2023: (a) what is the current total number of complaints received by the (i) chain of command, (ii) Military Police, (iii) Military Police Complaints Commission; (b) of the complaints received in (a), what specific administrative actions were taken, including the (i) initial counselling, (ii) recorded warning, (iii) counselling and probation, (iv) release from the CAF; (c) how many complaints are before a military tribunal; (d) broken down by province or territory, what is the total number of cases that have been transferred to (i) the RCMP, (ii) provincial police forces, (iii) municipal police forces; (e) what is the total number of cases that have been declined or sent back to the military; and (f) of the cases in (d) and (e), what is the average number of days for the relevant jurisdiction to accept or reject the case? With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB): (a) since 2017, what are the total expenditures by the CIB on projects that were not completed, indefinitely delayed or otherwise abandoned, including projects announced that never reached the Financial Close stage; (b) what is the breakdown of the expenditures in (a) by (i) project name and project partners, (ii) category and type of expenditure; (c) to date, how many (i) unsolicited project proposals has the CIB received, (ii) solicited proposals has the CIB proactively pursued; and (d) of the projects announced to date, how many of those were the result of (i) the CIB seeking those investments out, (ii) unsolicited proposals in which partners sought out CIB investment in their project? With regard to Canada’s census of agriculture and government information about farmland in Canada: (a) how many farm properties exist, broken down by federal electoral district; (b) how many different entities own agricultural land, broken down by federal electoral district; (c) how many different farm businesses are located in each federal electoral district; (d) what is the total number of acres of farmland in each federal electoral district; and (e) what is the average size of farms, in acres, in each federal electoral district? With regard to the Federal Skilled Worker Program, in the past five years: (a) how many and what percentage of applications exceeded the six months service standard for processing; and (b) of the applications in (a), how many and what percentage took (i) six months to nine months, (ii) nine months to one year, (iii) one year to 18 months, (iv) 18 months to five years, (v) more than five years, to be processed? With regard to the Auditor General’s report entitled “Modernizing Information Technology Systems”, in section 7.44: (a) what are details of the 22 high-risk projects monitored by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), including, for each, the (i) name of the department or agency overseeing the project, (ii) project name, (iii) description, (iv) action taken by the government to address the concerns raised in the report; and (b) what are the total expenditures to date, and the project future expenditures of each of the 22-high risk projects monitored by the TBS? With regard to the Auditor General’s report entitled “Modernizing Information Technology Systems”, in section 7.50: (a) which departments or agencies have requested funding for “modernization needs” and how much has each one requested; and (b) which departments or agencies were represented by the 83% of Chief Technology Officers that expressed they were not satisfied with the available mechanisms for funding modernization projects? With regard to the Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities program, broken down by fiscal year and province or territory, since November 2015: (a) what is the annual budget of this program; (b) what are the details of all activities funded by this program, including the (i) community or First Nation that received funding, (ii) amount of funding received, (iii) number of children expected to benefit; (c) how many proposals for funding were denied funding; and (d) what is the total amount of lapsed spending by this program? With regard to the Nutrition North program, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what is the total amount of funding directed towards culturally appropriate retail and community-based nutrition education activities; (b) how many initiatives received funding for the purpose of (i) nutrition workshops, (ii) healthy cooking classes, (iii) in-store sampling of healthy food, (iv) knowledge and skill building related to traditional or country food harvesting and preparation, (v) gardening, (vi) training of community workers, (vii) the development of local nutrition education materials; and (c) what are the details of all initiatives in (b), including the (i) name of the community, organization, or company that received funding, (ii) date the funding was received, (iii) amount of funding? With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Recovery Benefit: (a) how much does the government estimate is owed in repayments; (b) how many individuals owe repayments; (c) how many individuals in (b) reported an income below the low-income cut off on their 2022 income tax return; (d) what is the lowest amount owed; (e) what is the highest amount owed; (f) what is the average amount owed; (g) of the individuals owing money, how many does the government estimate were victims of fraud; (h) of the total estimate amount owed, how much does the government expect to (i) successfully recover, (ii) recover from those whose income is below the low-income cut-off; and (i) how much does the government intend to spend on staff time and resources to recover these debts, broken down by department, agency or other government entity? With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB): (a) broken down by province or territory, what is the total number of individuals who have had their government benefits or credits applied to outstanding CERB or CRB debt; (b) of the individuals in (a), what is the total number who have had tax refunds or benefit payments offset to recover debt, broken down by costs recovered from (i) individual tax returns, (ii) the Canada Child benefit, (iii) provincial or territorial child benefits, (iv) GST or HST credits, (v) Canada Disability Benefits, (vi) Climate Action incentive? With regard to the government’s response to the situation in Sudan: (a) how many people have been evacuated from Sudan who are (i) Canadian citizens, (ii) Canadian permanent residents, (iii) family members of Canadian citizens or permanent residents, since April 1, 2023; (b) what special immigration measures has the government implemented for people leaving Sudan; (c) what additional special immigration measures is the government examining or considering for people leaving Sudan; (d) is the government investigating allegations against any Canadian firms relating to their relationships with Sudanese military or paramilitary groups, and, if so, which firms are under investigation; (e) what is the government’s position regarding (i) the presence of the Wagner Group in Sudan, (ii) calls for the listing of the Wagner Group as a terrorist entity? With regard to members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) posted in Europe: are members of the CAF still being asked to pay for their own meals upfront and then seek reimbursements, and, if so, how many are currently required to do this, in total, and broken down by rank and location of service? With regard to Canadian citizens detained or incarcerated abroad, in total, and broken down by country of detention or incarceration: (a) how many citizens are detained or incarcerated; (b) how many citizens are detained in circumstances that violate their human rights; (c) how many citizens are detained for offenses that would not be considered offenses if committed in Canada; and (d) how many Canadian detainees is the government seeking to have released? With regard to the Northern Residents Tax Deduction: (a) what is the total number of claimants and the total amount of residency deduction claimed between 2018 and 2022, broken down by province; and (b) what is the total number of claimants and the total amount of residency deduction claimed by residents of Haida Gwaii between 2018 and 2022? With regard to federally owned lands in British Columbia: (a) what federally owned lands fall within the municipal boundaries of the (i) City of Terrace, (ii) the District of Kitimat, (iii) Town of Smithers, (iv) City of Prince Rupert; and (b) for each parcel in (a), what is the (i) size in hectares, (ii) current use? With regard to Health Canada’s authorization of the Comirnaty Omicron XBB.1.5 and Spikevax XBB.1.5 vaccines: (a) is there any clinical data demonstrating efficacy of these vaccines, and, if so, what data; (b) is there any clinical data demonstrating safety of these vaccines, and, if so, what data; (c) is there any data suggesting that previously authorized messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines are outdated with respect to currently circulating variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; (d) is there any concern that currently authorized mRNA vaccines will help select for more successful variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; (e) is there any data suggesting that disease-induced immunity is stronger than vaccine-induced immunity from authorized mRNA vaccines for COVID-19; (f) do currently authorized mRNA vaccines prevent COVID-19 infection; (g) do currently authorized mRNA vaccines prevent COVID-19 transmission; and (h) what positive health impact do currently authorized mRNA vaccines have on recipients? With regard to the government’s policies governing information technology (IT) projects, delivery, and contracting: (a) what policies and procedures are in place to ensure independent assessment and oversight, as well as ensuring value-for-money, on IT projects over $2.5 million; (b) what contract vehicles are in place for departments and agencies to secure the resources needed to perform the procedures in (a); (c) what are the details of each contract related to (b), including, for each, the (i) date the contract came into force, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided; and (d) what were the total expenditures on federal IT (i) infrastructure, (ii) software, (iii) services, (iv) consultants, in each of the last three years, in total and broken down by department or agency? With regard to the government’s approach to information technology (IT): (a) what were the total expenditures on (i) research or IT database subscription services, (ii) benchmarking, (iii) value-assurance services for IT, in total, and broken down by department or agency and by each client department of Shared Services Canada; (b) which companies or stakeholders were consulted when Public Services and Procurement Canada made the decision to eliminate the National Master Standing Offers for Research (IT database subscription services) and Benchmarking for IT services that was previously in place for research and benchmarking services; (c) what are the details of the consultations in (b), including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) who was consulted, (iii) the feedback received; (d) what are the details of any outside consultants or service providers that have been involved in the development of a new contracting vehicle for these services, and what are the details of each, including the (i) name of the individual or firm, (ii) contract value, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) description of the goods or services provided; (e) how many government employees or full-time equivalents worked on the redesign and consultations; (f) what are the (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, costs associated with the redesign and consultations incurred to date, in total, and broken down by year and type of expense; (g) how many suppliers does the government use for research (IT database subscription services), benchmarking and value-assurance services relating to IT, and who are the suppliers; (h) how many of the suppliers in (g) include retired civil servants from the government; (i) what steps does the government take to ensure these service providers aren’t conflicted through partnerships, alliances, downstream implementation conflicts and other contractual arrangements; (j) how many and which departments and agencies use research (IT database subscription services), benchmarking and value-assurance services; and (k) for each department or agency in (j), what service providers are contracted to provide these services? With regard to government funding provided to Greenfield Construction or its subsidiaries: what are the details of all funding, since November 4, 2015, broken down by department or agency, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the type of funding (i.e. repayable loan, grant, contract), (iv) the purpose of funding or the project description, (v) the repayment terms, if applicable, (vi) whether there has been a change order associated with the funding, and, if so, what are the details, including the revised amount of the change order? With regard to government funding provided for projects at or in the vicinity of North Head Harbour on Grand Manan Island, New Brunswick: what are the details of all funding, since November 4, 2015, broken down by department or agency, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the type of funding (i.e. repayable loan, grant, contract), (iv) the purpose of funding or the project description, (v) the repayment terms, if applicable, (vi) whether there has been a change order associated with the funding, and, if so, what are the details, including the revised amount of the change order? With regard to VIA Rail Canada: what are the details of all meetings involving the current President and CEO and one or more government officials not employed by VIA Rail Canada, including elected and non-elected officials of all federal, provincial, and municipal governments, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, including if the meeting was in person or virtual, (iii) names and titles of the attendees, (iv) purpose of the meeting? With regard to Global Affairs Canada and foreign aid funding: (a) what are the details of how much funding was received by (i) the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs funding, (ii) the United Nations Development Programme, (iii) the World Health Organization, (iv) the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, (v) the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, (vi) the World Food Programme, (vii) any other organization that received over $1 million in foreign aid funding in the last fiscal year; (b) for each organization in (a), on what date were they last audited to ensure that their funding was being spent appropriately; and (c) what were the findings of each audit in (b)? With regard to efforts by the government to combat illegal fishing by vessels off the British Columbia coast, broken down by year since 2019: (a) how many boats were intercepted for allegedly engaging in illegal fishing; and (b) what are the details of each incident where a vessel was intercepted, including, for each, the (i) name, (ii) country of origin, (iii) location where the vessel was intercepted, (iv) type of alleged illegal fishing, (v) resulting action (i.e. fine, seizure, criminal charges, etc.), (vi) quantity of illegal fish caught, broken down by species? With regard to government expenditures on aircraft rentals or charters since December 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on the rental of aircraft; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) dates of rental, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) purpose of the trip, (vi) origin and the destination of flights, (vii) titles of passengers, including which passengers were on which segments of each trip? With regard to Indigenous Services Canada’s funding of the seasonal ferry Aazhaawe that travels between Virginia Beach, Ontario, to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation on Lake Simcoe: (a) how much funding has been provided related to the ferry by Indigenous Services Canada, broken down by year for each of the last five years; and (b) what costs are covered by this funding, including whether (i) fuel costs, (ii) maintenance and repair costs, (iii) operations costs, (iv) other costs, broken down by type, are covered? With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what was the average hourly catch rate, per net, of northern cod, broken down by area for fishing areas 2J, 3K and 3L, in 1988, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, for the commercial and stewardship fisheries; (b) what was the average catch rate, per net, of northern cod, broken down by area for fishing areas 2J, 3K, and 3L, in 1994, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, in the sentinel fishery program; and (c) what is the annual cost to carry out the sentinel cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1994, 2005, 2015, 2020 and 2022? With regard to the Auditor General’s report entitled “The Benefits Delivery Modernization Programme”: (a) what were the total expenditures associated with the June 2022 review by the Treasury Board Secretariat; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by line item and type of expense; (c) what were the total expenditures associated with the March 2021 schedule review; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by line item and type of expense; and (e) what were the costs associated with the delays associated with the March 2021 schedule review? With regard to the export of Canada’s plastic waste under the Basel Convention: (a) what measures are in place to ensure that plastic waste exported without a permit is clean, sorted, and intended for recycling; (b) how many times since January 1, 2021, has the government imposed punitive measures on companies for failing to comply with these requirements; (c) does the government monitor the final country of destination for plastic waste exported to the United States, and, if so, what specific processes are in place to accomplish this; (d) does the government track the exported plastic waste that is (i) covered under export permits, (ii) exempted from the permit process, to determine if this waste is recycled or disposed of safely, and, if so, what specific processes are in place to accomplish this; (e) since November 4, 2015, has the government conducted research to evaluate the potential impact that banning the export of plastic waste would have on stimulating investments in a national circular economy, and, if so, what are the details of this research, including (i) who conducted it, (ii) its methodology, (iii) its findings; and (f) what are the details of each punitive measure in (b), including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) name of the company, (iii) type of punitive measure, including the amount fined, (iv) incident summary? With regard to the carbon footprint resulting from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change’s air travel: (a) what are the details of all trips involving air travel taken by the minister since January 1, 2019, including, for each, the (i) dates, (ii) origin and the destination, (iii) purpose of the trip, (iv) number of travellers accompanying the minister, (v) estimated carbon footprint resulting from the minister’s travel, (vi) estimated carbon footprint resulting from the delegation’s travel, (vii) total expenditures related to the trip, broken down by each traveller and type of expense; and (b) for each trip in (a), were virtual or other options that did not involve air travel considered, and, if so, why were the other options not chosen? With regard to federal spending on settlement services and newcomer housing in the electoral district of Winnipeg Centre, broken down by fiscal year since November 2019: (a) what is the amount of federal funding committed for the purpose of (i) settlement services, (ii) newcomer housing; (b) what are the details of all initiatives that received funding, including the (i) name of the organization that received funding, (ii) date the funding was received, (iii) amount of funding; and (c) what is the total amount of lapsed spending? With regard to the government’s response to homelessness and tent cities: (a) what are the details of all programs currently in place to deal with homelessness and tent cities; (b) for each program in (a), how much funding is allocated in (i) the current fiscal year, (ii) each of the next five fiscal years; (c) which of the programs in (a) involve funding for addiction treatment and recovery; (d) how is the funding for each program tracked, monitored and audited; and (e) does the government have any quantifiable goals for reducing the number of homeless Canadians, and, if so, what are they, nationally and broken down by region? With regard to expenditures on social media influencers, including any contracts which would use social media influencers as part of a public relations campaign, since January 1, 2021: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) campaign description, (iv) date of the contract, (v) name or handle of the influencer; and (b) for each campaign that paid an influencer, was there a requirement to make public, as part of a disclaimer, the fact that the influencer was being paid by the government, and, if not, why not? With regard to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s (GLFC) machinery of government interface with the government, its financing and its obligations to Canada under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries Between the United States of America and Canada (1954): (a) from what statute(s) or Act(s) of Parliament does the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard derive the legislative authority to function as the lead minister; (b) does the existing legislative authority of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard negate, alter or eliminate the GLFC Privileges and Immunities Order (originally made under section 3 of the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act and subsumed into section 16 of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act); (c) what are the primary functions and operational limitations of the ministers responsible for the interface functions pursuant to all relevant statutes and regulations; (d) does the Great Lakes Convention Act, or any other statutes, regulations or Acts of Parliament, provide any ministers with the authority to direct the commission or the commission’s routine activities and programming beyond Parliament’s prerogative to approve annual budget allocations to the Commission; (e) what are the implications of paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act for the interaction of Canada with the commission; (f) has Canada’s annual financial allocation to the commission been “fenced” as described by the Department of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard (DFO) officials during their testimony on June 8, 2023, to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO); (g) what is the precise nature, structure and limitations of the “fencing” structure described by DFO officials during testimony on June 8, 2023, to the FOPO; (h) what sources, officials, or departments would possess the authority to alter, reverse or eliminate the financial “fencing” described by DFO officials during their testimony on June 8, 2023, to FOPO; (i) who or what body is the Canadian Contracting Party as described under Article II; (j) what is the role of Parliament with regard to supervision, directing and oversight of the activities and programming of the commission; (k) if the Contracting Party is not Parliament, what is the role of Parliament with regard to the supervision, direction and oversight of the Contracting Party; (l) does the existing legislative framework provide the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard with the authority to administer the Great Lakes Fishery Convention Act or does the legislative framework provide specific ministerial authority, and, if so, what is the precise nature and limit of that authority; (m) does the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries Between the United States of America and Canada (1954) stipulate that commissioners are representatives of the Contracting Parties, and, if so, does this stipulation provide commissioners with the authority to represent Canada at Commission meeting and events; and (n) does the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries Between the United States of America and Canada (1954) provide for a specific authority for any minister(s) to directly represent Canada at commission meetings and events? With regard to the housing crisis and affordable housing in Canada: (a) will the government commit to the recommendations of the Canadian Real Estate Association to (i) create a permanent national housing roundtable to bring together housing stakeholders in order to address the housing crisis through an inclusive, holistic approach that emphasizes collaboration, innovation and policy coordination, (ii) leverage federal infrastructure funding with municipal, provincial and territorial partners requiring the creation of more housing supply, (iii) develop a housing workforce immigration strategy to attract tradespeople from abroad while streamlining the immigration process for qualified professionals willing to work in the construction industry; and (b) how much funding for affordable housing has been distributed to the City of Windsor, Ontario, through federal government programs over the last five years, from January 1, 2018, through present, including (i) what federal funding programs were applied for, (ii) the amount of funding distributed, (iii) the list of specific projects funded, (iv) whether the funding was in the form of grants or loans? With regard to Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC) funding for Indigenous housing in Edmonton, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what are the details of all funding applications received, including the (i) name of the requester, (ii) amount requested, (iii) status of the application, (iv) amount of funding granted, (v) progress on the project; (b) what actions has the CMHC undertaken to make it easier for Indigenous housing providers to apply for funding; (c) does the CMHC record data on potential applications who have abandoned projects because of burdensome or overly complicated application procedures, and, if so, what indicators does the CMHC use to make the process easier; and (d) what is the CMHC doing to ensure that Indigenous housing providers, such as Tribal Chiefs Ventures Inc., are not encumbered by debt when co-investing in Indigenous housing? With regard to the Post-Secondary Student Support Program, broken down by fiscal year since 2008-09 and by province or territory: (a) what are the details of all funding arrangements made with Indigenous governments and organizations concerning this program, including the (i) name of the First Nations or First Nations-designated organization, (ii) amount of funding to cover eligible expenses for students, (iii) number of students who received support; and (b) what is the total annual expenditure by the government on this program? With regard to contract work performed for the Canadian Border Services Agency, since November 2015, and broken down by fiscal year: (a) what is the total number of contracts awarded to (i) GCStrategies, (ii) Dalian Enterprises Inc., (iii) Coradix Technology Consulting, (iv) Moravej Inc., (v) 10583308 Canada Inc.; (b) what are the details of all contracts in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) number of amendments to the initial contract; and (c) what is the total number of government employees who reviewed, processed and approved each contract in (a)?

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

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, to ask that you treat Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as an omnibus bill, and divide it for voting purposes at the second and third reading stages. This argument is, of course, without prejudice to the arguments which were made last week by me in respect of the rule against anticipation and Ways and Means Motion No. 19, which preceded the introduction of Bill C-59, for which the House is still awaiting a ruling from the Speaker. Section (1) of Standing Order 69.1 provides that “In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting". Section (2) of the same standing order makes an exception for budget implementation bills, stating, “if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation”. As Speaker Regan ruled on November 8, 2017, at page 15143 of the Debates, where a budget bill contains measures which were not part of the budget, this budget bill exemption applies only to those elements which were in the budget itself. The non-budget elements can be divided under the provisions of Standing Order 69.1(1). In the case of Bill C-59, calling it a budget implementation bill would be exceedingly generous. While reference to the March budget can be found in the long title, the short title ignores this, calling the bill the “fall economic statement implementation act, 2023”. Not even the government House leader, the manager of the government's parliamentary program, used it as a budget implementation bill, judging by her remarks in the last two weekly business statements. On November 23, she told the House, “it is the intention of the government to commence debate next week concerning the bill relating to the fall economic statement”. This past Thursday, she said that priority will be given to the second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement. Therefore, I would argue that the evident treatment given to Bill C-59 by its own proponents, would mean that its main purpose is, indeed, not the implementation of a budget. Accordingly, it would follow that the exemption found in Standing Order 69.1(2) cannot apply here. I would further argue that Speaker Regan's November 2017 ruling can be distinguished from the facts at hand today, namely that he dealt with a budget bill with a few extra add-ons. Here, we have a bill that is not even being treated, in the main, as a budget implementation bill and that, therefore, cannot even benefit from a partial exemption, since the main purpose of Bill C-59 is not to implement a budget. Having addressed that matter, I now wish to turn to the matter of treating the bill as an omnibus one, “where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked”. In my respectful view, the fact that a series of measures may have been previewed in a fall economic statement does not amount to a so-called common element. Given that fall economic statements are often popularly dubbed “mini-budgets” and that the House itself recognizes that budgets often string together otherwise unrelated things by creating the budget implementation bill exemption in Standing Order 69.1, it is my submission that the mere inclusion of an item in a fall economic statement cannot be sufficient to overcome the treatment required for an omnibus bill. Even if the Chair might be persuaded that all of the measures are, in one form or another, a matter of broad economic policy, I would refer you to Speaker Regan's March 1, 2018, ruling at page 17551 of the Debates: In presenting arguments relating to Bill C-63, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard raised an interesting concept from the practice in the Quebec National Assembly. Quoting from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, he stated: “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.” While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House. In this particular instance, I have no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-69 relate to environmental protection. However, I believe there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated that they warrant multiple votes. Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton dealt with another similar situation when he ruled on June 18, 2018, at page 21163 of the Debates, in respect of a former Bill C-59, stating it: ...does clearly contain several different initiatives. It establishes new agencies and mechanisms for oversight of national security agencies and deals with information collection and sharing as well as criminal offences relating to terrorism. That said, one could argue, as the parliamentary secretary did, that since these are all matters related to national security, there is, indeed, a common thread between them. However, the question the Chair must ask itself is whether these specific measures should be subjected to separate votes. He goes on to state, “In this particular case, while the Chair has no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-59 relate to national security, it is the Chair's view that there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated as to warrant dividing the question.” Therefore, I would suggest that today's bill, Bill C-59, should also be divided for voting purposes at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading. After a brief review and analysis of the bill's contents, it seems that it could actually be divided into several groupings: clauses 1 to 95, proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act and consequential amendments to other enactments, as well as the bill's short title; clauses 96 to 128, proposing the creation of a digital services tax; clauses 129 to 136, 138 to 143 and 145 to 167, proposing amendments concerning the excise tax, other than the exemption of GST for mental health services, which is also contained in Bill C-323, a matter to which I will return later; clauses 168 to 196, proposing amendments to the laws governing financial institutions; clauses 197 to 208, proposing to create a leave entitlement related to pregnancy loss and to amend the law concerning bereavement leave; clauses 209 to 216, proposing the creation of a Canada water agency; clauses 217 and 218, proposing amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act; clauses 219 to 230, proposing amendments to the Canadian Payments Act; clauses 231 to 272 proposing various amendments to competition law; clauses 273 to 277, proposing amendments exempting post-secondary schools from the laws concerning bankruptcy and insolvency; clauses 278 to 317, proposing various legislative amendments concerning money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasions; clauses 318 and 319, concerning the information which is published by the government respecting certain transfer payments to the provinces; clauses 320 to 322, proposing amendments concerning the Public Sector Pension Investment Board; and clauses 323 to 341, proposing the creation of a department of housing, infrastructure and communities. Additionally, I would propose that clauses 137 and 144, concerning the exemption of GST for mental health services, mirroring the provisions of Bill C-323, as well as clauses 342 to 365, creating employment insurance and job protection benefits for adoptive and surrogate parents, replicating the substance of Bill C-318, should also be separated out from Bill C-59. However, in this instance, I would suggest that, instead of a separate vote, these provisions would simply not proceed further given that the House has already taken a decision on the principle of those matters when it adopted the common-sense Conservative private members' bills at second reading. Approaching it in this fashion might be an elegant solution to squaring the circle in the ruling that remains pending on Ways and Means Motion No. 19. In short, Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation bill, is an omnibus bill under Standing Order 69.1. It qualifies in no way for the budget bill exemption in that rule. It can and should be divided into separate votes, about 14 or so based on the thematic groupings of the bill's clauses. It would, if so divided, offer an elegant solution for a pending Speaker's ruling to reconcile the long-standing rules and precedents of the House respecting multiple decisions on the same question that, for reasons we are awaiting, did not apply to Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and that saw the House vote, yet again, on the principles found in two Conservative private members' bills that had already been adopted at second reading.

I thank the hon. member for all of the elements brought forth. They will be taken into consideration.

moved that the bill be concurred in.

The sponsor of the motion and the member who had submitted an identical notice have indicated to the Chair that they do not wish to proceed with Motion No. 1. Accordingly, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Call in the members.

I declare the motion carried.

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, the words that come to my mind right away are “all MAGA, all the time”. To me, that is what this vote was all about. I think the vast majority of Canadians truly understand what we just witnessed, and this is not the first time. The Conservative Party today has gone so far to the right—

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Standing Orders say we are not allowed to reflect on a vote that has been taken in this House, and the parliamentary secretary is doing that. Also, the parliamentary secretary consistently rises in this place and extols very toxic rhetoric. We have the Minister of Trade sitting right here. Should she not be addressing this instead of the parliamentary secretary?

That is definitely not up to the opposition to decide. The hon. member for Kingston and Islands, on the same point of order.

Madam Speaker, the issue of reflecting on a vote and talking about how one has voted previously is something we all do in this House all the time. I do not know where the member is coming from, other than the fact that he does not want to hear the truth about—

We are not going to get into a debate on this. I will make sure this is the case in just a moment. Standing Order 18, on page 12, says, “No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.” This is in the Standing Orders, and I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to retract.

Madam Speaker, I am going to continue to reflect on the behaviour of the Conservative Party when the Conservative Party consistently votes against Ukraine.

The hon. member was told that is not allowed by the Standing Orders. The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, not only do I take great offence to the fact that he referred to the Conservative Party as far right, but I would also note that according to the Standing Orders, that is not the subject of the debate at hand today.