SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 297 - Apr/10/24

Apr/10/24 5:48:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I do think it is important for the House to understand this very clearly. For all Canadians watching, the Conservatives did say no twice to our veterans—

36 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/10/24 5:48:31 p.m.
Watch

That is descending into debate. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

14 words

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/10/24 5:48:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is common practice in the House that if somebody is going to move for unanimous consent, they actually talk to all of the other whips to make sure we get to a unanimous consent motion. We were not consulted, and we will not say yes on something we have not been consulted on.

61 words

Whips

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/10/24 5:49:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I agree completely with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman that those discussions should be had in advance. The unfortunate reality is that Conservatives never do that. They are the biggest abusers of that rule in the House, so for the member to stand up and say that is quite ironic and demonstrates hypocrisy.

64 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/10/24 5:49:22 p.m.
Watch

The point is well taken. From this chair, I would ask all parties to get together to debate these things to make sure that before they come to the floor, they are actually going to be voted upon in the positive. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

56 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/10/24 5:49:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify that that was the second time that they voted—

15 words

Voted
8212

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/10/24 5:49:40 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton in rising on a question of privilege.

15 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Apr/10/24 5:49:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege from the 63rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was tabled earlier today. While the main thrust of the report concerned the prima facie contempt, which the House referred to the committee last year related to foreign interference directed toward the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other colleagues, it is my view that the report lays out grounds for finding a new prima facie contempt. Namely, that the Minister of National Defence provided misleading evidence to the committee and misleading comments in the House. I should first offer some context. After the House agreed, on May 10, 2023, to refer to the committee that question of privilege, which was sparked by a report in The Globe and Mail based on a July 2021 intelligence assessment, it came to light, through special rapporteur David Johnston's subsequently published report that: In addition to the memorandum in question, CSIS sent an issues management note (IMU) to the then Minister of Public Safety, his Chief of Staff, and his Deputy Minister in May 2021, noting that there was intelligence that the PRC intended to target [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills], another MP, and their family in China (if any). As the Speaker will recall, having been a member of the procedure and House affairs committee at the time, this led to new areas of important questions for our witnesses and especially for the public safety minister. In the portion of the 63rd report summarizing the minister's appearances before the committee, we may read that the minister “understands that CSIS authorized the IMU to be shown to him, but he never received it.” The associated footnote in the committee's report points to the minister's statement responding to one of my questions, which is found at page 22 of the committee evidence for June 1, 2023. It reads: It was authorized by CSIS to be shown to me, but they determined.... The director determined that this was not information the minister needed to know, so I was never notified of the existence of that intelligence, nor was it ever shared with me. On the following page, one may read his further statements. When pressed about ministerial responsibility, he said: This is a situation where it's an operational decision of CSIS as to what information needs to be passed along to government. In this case, they made an operational decision that this was not required. Two years later, when it was leaked to the press, that information was subsequently shared with me. At the time, I had no knowledge that it existed. I had no knowledge that it was not being shared with me, because I wasn't aware that the information was available. CSIS, quite appropriately, made a determination that they didn't believe it was necessary to pass that information along. The minister's version of events was soon contradicted. Elsewhere in the 63rd report, in the portion summarizing the testimony of CSIS director David Vigneault, we read that he: ...told the Committee that in May 2021 an IMU was sent from CSIS to the Minister of Public Safety...warning that [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills] and his family were being targeted by the PRC. The IMU included a specific directive that it be forwarded to the Minister. The purpose of the IMU was to highlight the information and bring it to the Minister’s attention. When asked whether the information contained in the May 2021 IMU was information that [the minister] did not need to know, Mr. Vigneault stated that “the fact that we did an issue management note speaks to the notion that we wanted to highlight the information” to [the minister]. The associated footnote directs the reader to the following comments by Mr. Vigneault, at page 4 of the evidence from the committee's evening meeting for June 13, 2023, in response to my questions: It's also important that when we see we have something of high importance...we have instituted this process called an “information management note”. That would be shared to bring attention to something more specifically. That was the purpose of this note. It was to bring it to the attention of the people to whom it was destined to go. Another footnote points to the following answer, at page 7 of the evidence, in response to a question from the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable: “As I mentioned a little earlier, CSIS and I conveyed the information to the Department of Public Safety along with the very specific directive to forward it to the minister... it's important for the committee to understand that we shared the intelligence and the briefing note.” In spite of this, the minister doubled down on his position. During question period on June 14, 2023, the day following Mr. Vigneault's committee appearance, in response to a question from his coalition partner, the hon. member for Burnaby South, the minister said, at page 15981 of the Debates, “Mr. Vigneault did not send his note to me”. Suffice to say there was no “operational decision” that was “appropriately made”, or otherwise, by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to keep the minister of public safety in the dark about a serious matter of national security, namely the threats from a foreign government directed toward a senior, long-serving member of the House of Commons. However, this analysis does not rely exclusively on the evidence of Mr. Vigneault. According to the 63rd report, the minister's then deputy minister, Rob Stewart, did not recall an operational decision not to inform the minister about the IMU. More pointedly, the IMU in question has been released by CSIS under the Access to Information Act and was subsequently tabled by Conservatives at the procedure and House affairs committee. The committee has made reference to its possession of the IMU in the following comment at footnote 98 of the 63rd report: “The Committee notes that, in documents that it received, the May 2021 CSIS IMU was sent to [the minister], his Chief of Staff, and his Deputy Minister”. A copy of the publicly released version of the IMU has, for good measure, been annexed to the Conservatives' supplemental opinions in the 63rd report, so that the House is seized with a copy of it. While the document is heavily redacted, it is still plain to see on its face, in two separate locations: “Distribution...confined exclusively to: DM Public Safety, Minister Public Safety, MIN PS CoS, NSIA.” Recall that the minister said here on the floor of the House that the note was not sent to him. The facts are clear: The Minister of National Defence misled the procedure and House affairs committee, and he misled the House. Page 82 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, notes among established grounds of contempt, “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. Similar comments can be found on pages 153 and 1,081, for example. As explained in numerous Speaker's rulings, to establish a prima facie contempt in respect of deliberately misleading statements three, elements must be made out. First, it must be proven that the statement in question was misleading. Second, it must be established that the person making the statement knew at the time that it was misleading. Third, in making the statement, it must be established that the statement was offered with the intention to mislead. It is clear from the evidence I have cited that the statement was misleading. As for the other two elements of that test, the correct analysis is the following one. On its face, the minister's testimony is, frankly, absurd. Why would CSIS issue an IMU to the minister on intelligence about which an operational decision had been made to not share it with him? This defies common sense and lacks all credibility. After the minister was caught out on this deception, he appeared before the committee a second time, on October 24, 2023, and offered this weak explanation: “I assumed that if the director did not share information with me, then he didn't require that I see it.” Without more, we are not satisfied with the minister's explanation. Not only was the minister's assumption incorrect. It was, I would submit, a faulty one, too. Certainly, the minister was in no place to speak so authoritatively or with such conviction that CSIS had “made an operational decision” to keep him in the dark. The minister used very specific words. He was unequivocal in his words. Moreover, the minister made the claim repeatedly. Taken together, it is evident his choice of clear, convincing and unequivocal wording was deliberate. He showed no hesitation, and he did not shade his words with doubt or otherwise represent that he was speaking on the basis of an assumption. Put simply, he did not misspeak. He actively misled the procedure and House affairs committee, and he actively misled this House. Speaker Milliken stated, on February 1, 2002, at page 8581 of the Debates: The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. The integrity of information here, too, is in doubt. To this, it is worth adding the words of one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, from a ruling delivered March 3, 2014, at page 3430 of the Debates: This incident highlights the primordial importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten. What is serious here is that these exchanges at committee appear to have been meant to deflect from the shocking fact that the minister of public safety, as he was, through his own inaction and omission, was unaware of intelligence concerning the targeting of a senior long-serving member of Parliament by a hostile foreign state, intelligence that CSIS had specifically sent to him as a matter of high importance. This constituted a serious breakdown in the flow of information and intelligence under the minister's watch. As the minister, he bore responsibility for this breakdown. Instead of accepting responsibility, the minister deflected blame to the director of CSIS for a supposed “operational decision” that had been made to keep him in the dark. The minister had to have known that no such “operational decision” had been made, yet he said so anyway. The minister had a duty to be truthful in his testimony to the committee. He was not truthful. He misled the committee in a self-serving attempt to evade accountability for a massive failure that occurred under his watch as minister of public safety. Misleading a parliamentary committee is a serious matter. Indeed, it can be a contempt of Parliament. That it was a minister of the Crown who did so makes this even more grave. It simply cannot be overlooked. Indeed, as Speaker Milliken ruled, on November 6, 2003, at page 9229 of the Debates: However tempting the invitation, the Speaker cannot presume to articulate the expectations that committees have of the witnesses who come before them. Suffice it to say that I believe all hon. members will agree with me when I say simply that committees of the House and, by extension, the House of Commons itself, must be able to depend on the testimony they receive, whether from public officials or private citizens. This testimony must be truthful and complete. When this proves not to be the case, a grave situation results, a situation that cannot be treated lightly. On February 1, 2002, after concerns about the statements of another Liberal minister of national defence, Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege, commenting, at page 8582 of the Debates: ...I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. Similarly, your predecessor ruled, on March 3, 2014, at page 3431 of the Debates, that a prima facie case of privilege existed: ...the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties. Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House. In the present case, the House, again, is possessed of two versions of events by virtue of the 63rd report. Before concluding, I should note that while the statements of concern were made last spring, the matter is actually being raised in the House at the earliest opportunity. I would refer the Chair, in that regard, to Speaker Milliken's February 10, 2011, ruling on page 8030 of the Debates: The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was not mistaken in his assertion that any and all statements made in committee, even when those have been repeated verbatim in the House, remain the business of the committee until such time as it elects to report them officially to the House. This is a long-standing practice.... Furthermore, while a copy of an internal CIDA document obtained through an access to information request was provided to me, it was not tabled in the House and, thus, is not officially before it.... Speaker Milliken continued: It may sound overly technical but the reality is that when adjudicating cases of this kind, the Chair is obliged to reference material fully and properly before the House. With regard to statements made by the minister, this material is limited to a few answers to oral questions and one answer to a written question, not to any comments in committee. A week following that ruling, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented its sixth report, which referred to the committee testimony in question as well as provided a copy of the document obtained through the access to information process. On the strength of this information with which the House had become seized, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege on March 9, 2011, at page 8842 of the Debates. The same circumstances prevail here with the 63rd report now placing properly before the House the necessary evidence to make out the relevant tests for the question of privilege I am raising. Should the Speaker agree with me that the air again needs to be cleared because the current Minister of National Defence appears to have committed a contempt by deliberately misleading the procedure and house affairs committee, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to task that committee with assessing this specific problem and reporting its views back to the House.

2597 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Apr/10/24 6:11:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the time to digest what the member just said and reserve the right to return to the House tomorrow on this.

28 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/10/24 6:12:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on this particular point, we too will return. However, while I have the floor, after discussions with you and others in the chamber, I am hoping to get unanimous consent to go back so that I can answer some Order Paper questions and motions for the production of papers.

51 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/10/24 6:12:31 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/10/24 6:12:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today. Question Nos. 2357, 2361 and 2363.

15 words

Apr/10/24 6:13:05 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2357—

Questioner: Lori Idlout

With regard to Indigenous Services Canada's 2023-24 Departmental Plan: (a) what indicators does the department use to measure the mental health and well-being of First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities; (b) do the indicators used by the department show that the mental health and well-being of First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities will improve by 2024-25; (c) does the Minister of Indigenous Services believe that the department can achieve its mental health targets by March 2028 with the sunsetting of funding for mental health and wellness at the end of 2023-24; (d) what is the total number of (i) full-time equivalent, (ii) part-time equivalent, employees who will be affected by the sunsetting of mental health and wellness funding; and (e) what are the details of all programs and services that will be reduced or eliminated as a result of the sunsetting of funding for mental health and wellbeing?

Question No. 2361—

Questioner: Eric Melillo

With regard to the government's commitment to plant 2 billion trees: (a) which organizations have received funding as part of the tree planting program; (b) for each organization in (a), how much funding has it received to date, broken down by year in which the funding was received; (c) for each organization in (a), how many trees was it expected to plant with the funding provided to date; and (d) how many of the trees in (c) have been planted to date?

Question No. 2363—

Questioner: Philip Lawrence

With regard to government funding for highway or road projects: (a) what are the details of all proposals or requests for funding related to highways or roads which the government has received but for which the funding has not yet been either formally approved or denied, including, for each, the (i) date on which the government received the proposal or request, (ii) amount of federal government funding requested, (iii) entity that submitted the request, (iv) summary of the proposal or request, including geographic location and road or highway numbers, if known, (v) current status of the application, (vi) expected timeline for when the government will provide a response; and (b) what are the details of any highway or road projects which are currently proposed or in progress and which are subject to, and waiting on, a federal environmental review, including, for each, the (i) name and description of the project, (ii) geographic location and highway or road numbers, if known, (iii) date on which the environmental review began, (iv) expected completion date of the environmental review, (v) current status of the project, including details of what has been completed to date, (vi) total amount of federal funding committed to the project, (vii) amount of government funding on hold pending the completion of the review?

1569 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/10/24 6:13:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if the government's responses to Question Nos. 2356, 2358 to 2360, 2362 and 2364 to 2370 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

36 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/10/24 6:13:19 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Apr/10/24 6:13:23 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2356—

Questioner: Julie Vignola

With regard to all federal contracts awarded between 2019 and 2023 to suppliers of the federal government, reporting departments, organizations and agencies, federal offices and any other federal entity that received funds from the Public Accounts of Canada: (a) which contracts required essential knowledge of the English language, both with respect to the spoken or written language of suppliers in the workplace and the language of deliverables; and (b) what are the details of each contract in (a), including the (i) contract number, (ii) name of the supplier, (iii) name of the federal department or agency responsible for the contract, (iv) amount awarded, (v) date of the contract, (vi) languages required for the work, (vii) languages required for deliverables, (viii) justification for requiring only English as the language of work or deliverables?

Question No. 2358—

Questioner: Lori Idlout

With regard to all federal funding committed to the creation and maintenance of housing stock in Nunavut, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what is the total amount committed; (b) what is the total amount spent; (c) how much new housing stock was created in Nunavut; and (d) what are the government's projections for the number of housing units that will be built in Nunavut by 2030?

Question No. 2359—

Questioner: Sameer Zuberi

With regard to the Cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers youth programs, in the 2022-23 fiscal year: (a) how many staff, broken down by employment status (i.e. full-time, part-time), were employed at the (i) Regional Headquarters, including the Northwest Region, Pacific Region, Central Region, Eastern Region, Atlantic Region, (ii) National Headquarters, (iii) Corps/Squadron level; (b) of the staff in (a), what were their roles, responsibilities, and job descriptions; (c) what was the salary range of those in (a)(i) and (a)(ii); (d) what professional and special services were used, how often, and for what purpose, and how much did each of these items cost; (e) how much money was spent on advertising by the (i) National Headquarters, (ii) Northwest Region, (iii) Pacific Region, (iv) Central Region, (v) Eastern Region, (vi) Atlantic Region; and (f) what is the breakdown of (e) by type or platform of advertising (e.g. Meta, Google, local television, local newspapers), how much money was spent exclusively on recruitment efforts, and what did those efforts include?

Question No. 2360—

Questioner: Sameer Zuberi

With regard to the federal public service, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how many public servants are employed in each department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity; (b) what is the breakdown of the employees in (a) by (i) branch of each department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, (ii) directorate in each branch; (c) what is the breakdown of the employees in (a) and (b) by level (i.e. at the executive level or higher, below the executive level); and (d) what is the breakdown of employees in (a) through (c) by employment status (i.e. full-time, part-time)?

Question No. 2362—

Questioner: Philip Lawrence

With regard to government programs that provide funding for roads and highways, including both regular and non-traditional highways or roads, such as those in northern or remote areas: what are the details of all funding agreements that are currently in place, including, for each, the (i) amount of federal funding, (ii) type of agreement, (iii) partners of the agreement, (iv) cost-sharing arrangement, (v) name of the agreement, (vi) program under which the funding is provided, (vii) project description, (viii) specific geographic location of the roads receiving the funding, including highway or road numbers, if applicable?

Question No. 2364—

Questioner: Gord Johns

With regard to contracts awarded since the 2009-10 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) KPMG, (vi) Ernst and Young, (vii) GC Strategies, (viii) Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., (ix) Dalian Enterprises Inc., (x) Coradix Technology Consulting Ltd, (xi) Dalian and Coradix in joint venture?

Question No. 2365—

Questioner: Colin Carrie

With regard to Health Canada’s approval of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines (modified with N1-methylpseudouridine) for pregnant women: (a) what specific research data supported the claims that (i) this product may be safely administered at any stage of pregnancy, (ii) this product protects pregnant women from SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease, (iii) the vaccinated mother is less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to her newborn after delivery compared to an unvaccinated mother, (iv) the modRNA vaccine, and consequently the spike protein, do not excrete into breast milk, (v) the modRNA, and consequently the spike protein, do not cross the placental barrier, (vi) all modRNA is destroyed in the human body within about two days, (vii) there is no possibility that the modRNA vaccine contents will enter the cell nucleus and modify the human genome; (b) with respect to the claims in (a), has Heath Canada modified these claims based on updated scientific research, and if so, which claims and how; (c) what is the real-world data indicating that this product presents no safety concerns for the pregnant woman or the developing fetus or newborn; (d) what is the quantitative threshold for a concerning safety signal for these cohorts; (e) how has the monograph for the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines been updated in relation to pregnancy and lactation to convey this safety research data; and (f) when were these updates made?

Question No. 2366—

Questioner: Cathay Wagantall

With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) approval of mRNA vaccines for pregnant and lactating women, and children, youth, and adults of reproductive age: (a) what is the cause of the reported menstrual irregularities in vaccinated women; (b) what is the safety data on any single exposure and repeated exposure to lipid nanoparticles (LNP) for (i) pregnant women, (ii) unborn fetuses; (c) do LNPs, spike protein encoding mRNA, or spike protein pass through the placenta; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, does this present a safety concern to the unborn fetus, and how was this determined; (e) where are LNPs, mRNA, or spike protein distributed in the fetus; (f) what are the potential genetic effects of the COVID-19 vaccine with respect to the epigenetic effects on germ cells; (g) what are the specific references confirming that mRNA is not integrated into the genome or genetic material of the oocyte or the sperm; (h) how, and for how long, does HC actively monitor or plan to actively monitor the impact of the dose-dependent effect of the vaccine on future fertility in (i) vaccinated women and men of child-bearing age, (ii) vaccinated children, (iii) children exposed in utero to the COVID-19 vaccines following maternal injection; (i) does HC actively monitor or plan to actively monitor the adverse effects of the mRNA vaccination, and for how long, in the (i) pregnant mother, (ii) fetus; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, does this or will this include miscarriages, uterine deaths, possible illnesses and birth malformations; (k) with respect to studies analyzing various components and products of COVID-19 vaccination, including spike protein, what have been the findings comparing placental tissue and breast milk from vaccinated and non-vaccinated mothers, and what are the specific references; (l) based on available research and real-world data, what updated written guidance has HC provided to provinces and territories regarding information which is given to pregnant women prior to and after vaccination, their doctors (neonatal doctors, paediatricians, fertility doctors, obstetricians), other medical staff (including midwives), and vaccinators with respect to (i) the potential adverse events to monitor post-injection, (ii) their duty to report adverse events and where; and (m) does the guidance in (l) include the updated mRNA vaccine monographs and where to find them?

Question No. 2367—

Questioner: Lori Idlout

With regard to Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nations land, since December 7, 2022: (a) what are the details of all consultations for the purposes of this legislation, including the (i) date of consultation, (ii) name of the First Nations rights-holder or organization consulted, (iii) details of the feedback received; (b) how many engagements did the government receive (i) through the mail, (ii) by phone, (iii) by email; (c) did the government receive any requests to extend the consultation period; and (d) what changes were made to the draft proposal sent to First Nations rights-holders and organizations on February 17, 2023, that were reflected in the version of Bill C-61 that was introduced and read the first time on December 11, 2023?

Question No. 2368—

Questioner: Scott Reid

With regard to penitentiary farm and agriculture and agri-food operations at the Joyceville Institution and the Collins Bay Institution: (a) what funds have been spent on Public Services and Procurement Canada fees and disbursements and professional project management services, including, but not limited to, concept design, project leaders, tender packages, geo-technology, hydrogeology, engineering, and architectural consultants, broken down by fiscal year since 2018; (b) what funds have been spent on feasibility studies, public consultations, online consultations, and contracts with Goss Gilroy and Monachus Consulting during the feasibility and consultation phase of the penitentiary farm project, between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018; (c) prior to the reinstatement of the penitentiary farm program, what revenues were earned by Correctional Service Canada from rental agreements for the penitentiary farmland at the Collins Bay Institution and the Joyceville Institution, broken down by year for each year from 2013 to 2018; (d) of the revenues earned from penitentiary agriculture programming since 2018, what is the breakdown by source and year; (e) how many offenders are currently employed in penitentiary agriculture programming, broken down by location; and (f) of the offenders who have been employed in penitentiary agriculture programming since it was reintroduced in 2018, how many have been released, and, of those released, how many obtained jobs in the agriculture sector?

Question No. 2369—

Questioner: Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

With regard to funding for research at universities and associated organizations: (a) what amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, is provided directly by the various federal government departments; (b) what amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, does not come from the granting agencies, used to fund research projects (i) in universities, (ii) in research organizations affiliated with universities, (iii) by researchers affiliated with a university, (iv) in total; and (c) what is the distribution of this amount in (a) and (b) between (i) U15 universities, (ii) small and medium-sized universities?

Question No. 2370—

Questioner: Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

With regard to funding for research at universities and associated organizations: (a) what is the amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, that is provided directly by the granting agencies and is used to fund research projects (i) in universities, (ii) in research organizations affiliated with universities, (iii) by researchers affiliated with a university, (iv) in total; and (b) what is the distribution of this amount between (i) U15 universities, (ii) small and medium-sized universities?

1815 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/10/24 6:13:23 p.m.
Watch

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

13 words

Stand
Ask

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/10/24 6:13:34 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/10/24 6:13:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time.

20 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/10/24 6:13:43 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: It being 6:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

35 words