I do not believe we have unanimous consent. I just want to remind the hon. members that, prior to bringing unanimous consent motions to the floor, they should shop it around and talk to each other to make sure that everything is in place. This way, we can guarantee success. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, there have indeed been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That: (i) After taking power in a military coup, in August of 1972, General Idi Amin ordered the expulsion of Ugandans of Asian descent, to take effect in 90 days; (ii) That Canada answered the international call to provide safe haven to Ugandan Asians who had suddenly become stateless; (iii) That in the Fall of 1972 the Canadian government and communities across the country mobilized to welcome 8,000 Ugandan Asians, among them people of various backgrounds and faiths, including Ismailis, Hindus, Sikhs, Catholics, Sunni and Shia; (iv) That this initiative was precedent setting—representing the first time in Canadian history that a massive refugee resettlement of racialized persons from outside of Europe was undertaken; and (v) That these refugees, who originally came here for safety, have also given back to Canada in immeasurable ways and continue to contribute to this very day. Therefore, this House confirm that on the 50th anniversary of the Ugandan Asian expulsion, the arrival of 8,000 Ugandan Asians in this country has been to the benefit to Canada and our development as a nation.

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. I hear none. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to say this with regard to the first point of order seeking unanimous consent. The last one actually had the consent of the House and that had been sought beforehand. I think that if we had a slight change to the wording formula, such as, “Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to the following motion, which has been approved by the House leaders of the recognized parties.” I think if that formula was used every time, as opposed to asking for unanimous consent without mentioning that statement of fact, we would end this nonsense of people standing up to read a motion for which there was no consent. I would strongly recommend you consider that.

I want to thank the hon. member for his input. I will leave it to the hon. members to do the best that they can to get their messages across. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order regarding the official opposition members' shushing of the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. I believe that you would find, during the last sitting week and this week, that we saw the same thing and heard the same thing, a loud shushing of a member of this place. I want to point out three things. The first is that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. Shushing is the same as telling someone to shut up, which we know is utterly unacceptable in the chamber. Secondly, the term is condescending. I do not think—

I think we are getting into debate here. I want to comment on that. There was an issue during question period. Depending on which way we are looking at it, I was not sure whether they were shushing the minister, because they were very quiet about it, or they were shushing each other or mocking each other. Either way, it is very important that we respect each other. That is something that I say to all members on all sides. We are giving an example to the kids back home who are watching and the adults who are watching. Is this what we want them to learn from us? That is all I am asking. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

I will answer that and then I will come back. I want to remind hon. members of the prerogative of the Speaker. Once Speakers have heard enough that they figure they can rule on it or make a decision then they can cut it off. Sometimes it does get into debate and is more about getting a message across. With respect to unanimous consent motions, we have already ruled on that and have asked members to ensure they have everything covered before bringing them forward. We have seen that abused in the past. I am not saying the hon. member for North Island—Powell River was abusing it; I am just saying that it has been abused in the past, which has ruined it for the people who are putting them forward now. If members want to make a speech, I would ask them to wait until they have time during the session when we have speeches or even during question period. However, unanimous consent motions were used poorly in the past, so I want to remind hon. members why we do not allow them to go on and on. Sometimes they have been used more as a method to clandestinely get their message across. That is what we are trying to avoid, because it eats up time and we cannot get the business of Parliament completed. That is the reason why and that is why I encourage everyone to talk among themselves if they have a unanimous consent motion. Every Tuesday the House leaders come together. I encourage them to talk tomorrow and maybe give some instruction to the Speaker with respect to how they would like that handled. I would appreciate the guidance of all the House leaders.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 30 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to the motion adopted on Wednesday, November 2, regarding humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “The Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Journalists and Media Organizations”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C‑226, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition on behalf of constituents from Courtenay, Cumberland and Royston in my riding. The petitioners cite that the current electoral system in Canada states that a party can win a majority of seats and all the power with less than half the popular vote; that proportional representation ensures majority governments have an actual majority of the voters' popular vote backing them; that many other countries, such as Germany, Italy, Ireland, New Zealand and the Netherlands, have progressed from a first past the post system to a proportional representation system; and that many American states are seeking to implement ranked choice voting so that all votes are calculated. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to move to a proportional representation system to bring credible representation to Canadians, something the Liberals promised in the last election. They also cite the important advantage it would have for the economy, the environment and for tackling inequality.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to an issue of great concern to my constituents, as we live in a coastal area where single-use plastics and marine contamination of plastics is a major issue. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to strengthen current lax regulatory definitions of single-use plastics to include more harmful items and close loopholes that currently allow single-use items to be classed as more durable with the notion people will take a plastic fork home and wash it in some cases. They call for the removal of the exemption that allows banned products to continue to be manufactured and exported, to move to a clearer and staged action plan that would really eliminate single-use plastics by the year 2030 and for these regulations to be brought forward and in force six months after they are published.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about Bill S-233 and Bill C-223. They are concerned these would cost the government an enormous amount of money. They are also concerned about government cheques disincentivizing people from working and maintaining a job and that taxes would have to be astronomically raised to pay for these bills. The petitioners therefore call on this Parliament to vote against Bill S-233 and Bill C-223 and any other legislation that encourages a universal basic income. They also call on the government to end the carbon tax and reduce inflation that reduces peoples' purchasing power, and they call for the government to approve any new and existing pipeline proposals and get Canadian energy to tidewater while stimulating job growth in Canada and Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 777, 782, 786, 792, 793, 796, 798, 799, 803, 804, 809, 810, 812, 823, 827 to 829 and 832.

With regard to the government's ArriveCAN application: (a) what is the government's explanation for why the application has a disproportionately high volume of ratings on Google Play and the Apple App Store, compared to almost every other app in the world; (b) has the government taken any action that would have had an impact on the number of ratings, and, if so, what are the details of any such action, including any amounts spent related to each action; and (c) is the government aware of any third party taking any action that would contribute to the amount of ratings, and, if so, what are the details of what the government is aware of? With regard to the former Ste. Anne’s Hospital’s Residential Treatment Clinic for Operational Stress Injuries (RTCOSI) for veterans, temporarily reopened by the Centre intégré universitaire de Santé et de services sociaux de l’Ouest-de-l’Île de Montréal as a mental health unit: (a) is Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) funding the care and stay of residents in the new clinic; (b) what role did VAC play in the closure of the RTCOSI and its recent reopening as a mental health unit; (c) why are the 15 beds in the mental health unit being offered to non-veterans instead of veterans; (d) what measures are being taken by VAC to reassign these 15 beds to veterans; and (e) does VAC have staff or a dedicated office for overseeing the delivery of health services to veterans at Ste. Anne’s Hospital? With regard to the government’s approach to China and Taiwan: has the government made any plans related to how it will respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and, if so, what are the plans? With regard to the Substance Use and Addictions Program, since its creation in 2016: (a) what applications for funding have been denied, including, for each proposed project, the (i) organization, (ii) project title, (iii) description, (iv) primary focus, (v) location, (vi) contribution amount sought from the Government of Canada, (vii) project duration, (viii) reason the funding was denied; (b) what approved applications have received less funding than requested, including, for each proposed project, the (i) organization, (ii) project title, (iii) description, (iv) primary focus, (v) location, (vi) project duration, (vii) contribution amount sought from the Government of Canada, (viii) approved contribution agreement amount from the Government of Canada, (ix) reason a lesser amount of funding was approved; and (c) how much funding has been applied for compared to the total amount approved to date? With regard to the recommendations made by the Expert Task Force on Substance Use to Health Canada in its May 2021 and June 2021 reports: (a) which recommendations does the government fully accept; (b) which recommendations does the government not accept in whole or in part; (c) for recommendations the government does not fully accept, what is the rationale for the disagreement; and (d) what steps have been taken to date to implement the recommendations? With regard to firearms and crime statistics held by the government, broken down by year since 2009: (a) how many fatal shootings, excluding suicides, in Canada, were from (i) legally, (ii) illegaly or improperly, registered firearms; (b) how many legally registered firearms were being operated by someone with a legal firearms licence; and (c) how many illegal or improperly registered firearms were being operated by someone with a legal firearms licence? With regard to medical assistance in dying (MAID) and Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC), since 2016: (a) how many times has a (i) VAC employee, (ii) third-party contracted by VAC, advised or suggested that a veteran consider MAID; (b) what is VAC's policy related to its (i) employees, (ii) contractors, suggesting MAID to veterans; and (c) on what date did the policy in (b) come into effect? With regard to the government's decision to keep various travel restrictions, including the mandatory usage of the ArriveCAN application in place during the 2022 summer travel season: does Destination Canada or the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance have any estimates on the amount of tourism revenue lost and the lower number of American tourists as a result of this decision, and, if so, what are the estimates? With regard to the government taxation policies and the statement by the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance during Oral Questions on Tuesday, September 20, 2022, “That is real money in the pockets of real Canadians”: what is the minister's definition of a real Canadian? With regard to Pacific Economic Development Canada (PacifiCan): (a) what is the total amount of project funding announced by the agency since its inception; (b) what is the total amount of project funding where the funding has actually been transferred to the recipient since the agency's inception; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by year; and (d) what are the details of all projects which have been funded by the agency to date, including, for each project, the (i) location, (ii) date of announcement, (iii) project description, (iv) amount of funding being provided by PacifiCan, (v) percentage of total project costs represented by the amount in (iv), (vi) start date, (vii) expected completion date, (viii) amount of PacifiCan funding actually delivered to the recipient to date, (ix) recipient? With regard to performance audits or similar types of assessments related to passport processing times which were completed or ongoing between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021: what are the details of each audit or assessment, including, for each, the (i) start and end date of the time period audited or assessed, (ii) summary and scope of the audit or assessment, (iii) findings, (iv) recommended changes to improve processing times, if applicable, (v) changes actually implemented, (vi) entity responsible for conducting the audit or assessment? With regard to the request made by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) to the government to list noma on the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of neglected tropical diseases: (a) what is the government rationale for (i) supporting, (ii) not supporting, the request; and (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, what are the details, including the dates, of how this support has been communicated to the WHO? With regard to the public service, and broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) as of September 23, 2022, how many employees were working (i) in person, (ii) at home, (iii) in a hybrid situation; (b) of those employees working in a hybrid situation, what is the breakdown by the number of days per week in the office versus from home; and (c) excluding those who normally work from a mission abroad, how many employees in (a)(ii) are working from a location outside of Canada? With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-701, which stated that the new front of packaging labelling requirements will produce a direct benefit valued at $2.33 billion over 15 years: what is the detailed breakdown, including the methodology used, of the $2.33 billion figure, and how the government came up with that number? With regard to the NEXUS program: (a) what is the current number of backlogged applications; (b) what is the cause for the Canadian offices to remain closed, while the American offices are open; (c) when will the Canadian offices re-open; (d) in 2019, how many times did a traveler use a NEXUS line at a Canadian (i) point of entry, broken down by type (land, airport, etc.), (ii) airport security screening location, broken down by airport; and (e) if the information in (d) is not tracked, what are the government's estimates? With regard to the non-budgetary loans, listed on page 306, Section 9 (Loans, investments and advance) of the 2021 Public Accounts of Canada, Volume 1: (a) which loans to foreign governments currently outstanding had interest rates based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR); and (b) for each loan in (a), what are the details, including the (i) country, (ii) amount of the loan, (iii) purpose of the loan, (iv) length of payback period, (v) year when the loan is expected to be paid off, (vi) previous interest rate formula used based on LIBOR, (vii) new interest rate formula following the phasing out of LIBOR? With regard to the September 6, 2022, announcement by the Prime Minister that the federal government will provide a $1.4 billion loan to build nearly 3,000 homes on traditional lands in Vancouver's Kitsilano neighbourhood: what are the details of the loan, including the interest rate and the timeline of the repayment plan? With regard to consultations undertaken by the government further to the “Just Transition” for energy workers, since 2021: (a) how many unique submissions were received; (b) how many and what proportion of submissions were from (i) energy industry workers, (ii) human resources or skills training professionals, (iii) environmentalists; (c) of the submissions received from environmentalists, what proportion of respondents demonstrated expertise in either the energy sector or skills training; (d) what proportion of submissions mentioned a variation on the theme of a brain drain of skilled workers leaving Canada for energy-producing jurisdictions; (e) what proportion of submissions mentioned which other economic activities demand skills comparable to those of energy workers; and (f) what proportion of submissions mentioned the compensation offered by so called green jobs for which the “Just Transition“ would retrain energy workers and whether that compensation is comparable to that of the energy sector?

Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 775, 776, 778 to 781, 783 to 785, 787 to 791, 794, 795, 797, 800 to 802, 805 to 808, 811, 813 to 822, 824 to 826, 830 to 831 and 833 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.