Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Terrebonne for her question, which allows me to elaborate. I would simply say that, contrary to what our colleagues may think, from its very inception, the Bloc Québécois made a solemn commitment to respect institutions. We are not here to throw a wrench in the works. We are here to ensure that Quebec gets its share within this country as long as it is part of Canada. We are here, of course, to promote what we feel is the best solution for Quebeckers, namely independence. We should not be seen as a threat. We may be seen as a threat but, in reality, we are conscientious members who do not do things just to make others look bad. It is very surprising for us as sovereigntists to see the Conservatives and Liberals literally behave like boors in the House of Commons and in committees when we should be working together in the fundamental interest of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's sincerity. I do not always agree with the particulars he notes, but I think highly of his motivations and intentions. I want to ask a question about this particular concurrence debate. This concurrence debate came up at this time as a result of conversation and negotiation among House leaders. It seems that some members were not fully briefed on those discussions, but there were discussions among House leaders. This was not brought forward as a surprise. This report could have been adopted by unanimous consent. In fact, it was a member of the Bloc who sought unanimous consent to adopt this same motion in the previous Parliament. At the time, it was a member of the Liberal Party who refused unanimous consent, so clearly we have seen some progress given the consensus here. However, this could have been adopted by unanimous consent. An attempt by his colleague was made to do that and it was not done. That is part of the context for the debate we are having today.

Madam Speaker, I think there is not much to say in response to what my hon. colleague just said. I felt that the record needed to be set straight to remind everyone that it was the Bloc Québécois who previously proposed unanimous adoption, which we were unable to obtain. I find it an odd coincidence that we are having to spend two hours debating a motion that should have been adopted unanimously a long time ago and that the work at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is completely paralyzed. It may be uncharitable of me, but I cannot help but see this coincidence.

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote and seek the unanimous consent of the House to defer the vote to tomorrow following question period.

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Accordingly, by unanimous consent, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: 1. That, in relation to its study of the situation at the Russia-Ukraine border and implications for peace and security, seven members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be authorized to travel to Brussels, Belgium; Helsinki, Finland; Stockholm, Sweden, and Warsaw, Poland, in the Winter of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 2. That, in relation to its study of Arctic sovereignty, security and emergency preparedness of Indigenous Peoples, seven members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories; Kugluktuk, Nunavut, and Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, in the Winter of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 3. That, in relation to its study of large port infrastructure expansion projects in Canada, seven members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be authorized to travel to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Montréal, Québec; Toronto, Ontario; Hamilton-Niagara region, Ontario; Vancouver, British Columbia, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, in the Winter of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition from members of the Dublin Street United Church in Guelph. The petitioners call on the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to intervene immediately to ensure that the backlog of refugee applications is greatly reduced and that Canadian sponsors can welcome many more refugees. There are 148 signatures from this group, which is really focused on helping refugees come to Canada.

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is in support of Bill S-223, which is a bill to prohibit forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. It would also create a mechanism by which a person could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they are involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill has been before the House in various forms for the last 15 years, and it will be proceeding to a final vote tomorrow. The petitioners no doubt hope that it will finally pass into law.

Madam Speaker, the second petition I am tabling raises concerns about calls by Louis Roy of the Collège des médecins du Québec to legalize infanticide in certain cases. People who signed this petition were horrified that someone from that college would openly, before a parliamentary committee, call for legal changes that would allow the killing of children, the killing of innocents. The petitioners say that infanticide is always wrong. They call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to legalize the killing of children in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise today to present a petition in the House. Petition e-4095 calls on the government to address the need for an additional attachment leave benefit for families formed by adoption, kinship and customary care. This petition, brought by Julie Despaties and the Time to Attach campaign, gathered 3,093 signatures. It calls on the government to bring equal treatment for adoptive parents, kinship and customary caregivers, and implement an additional 15-week attachment leave benefit under the employment insurance program. Families formed by adoption, kinship and customary care need to have the critical opportunity during their first year of placement to form bonds and connections and improve long-term outcomes for children and youth and their families. This call for an additional attachment leave benefit addresses that need. I am proud to table this petition in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 926, 927, 929, 930, 935 and 940.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 918 to 925, 928, 931 to 934, 936 to 939 and 941 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

With regard to the Connecting Families initiative announced in budget 2017 and the Connecting Families 2.0 program announced on April 4, 2022, broken down by fiscal year and province or territory: (a) on what dates were letters sent to households informing them of their eligibility; (b) how many households were notified that their eligibility was being re-assessed due to (i) changes to their Canada Child Benefit payments, (ii) changes to their Guaranteed Income Supplement payments, (iii) the receipt of Canada Emergency Response Benefits payments? With regard to Destination Canada, since January 1, 2021: has Destination Canada paid or provided any financial incentives to the MICHELIN Guide or any individual or entity associated with the MICHELIN Guide, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) amount of the payment or summary of the financial incentive, (ii) date, (iii) reason, (iv) recipient? With regard to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development's position on the treatment of Uyghurs by the Chinese government: what is the minister's position? With regard to terminology in the government's response to Order Paper question Q-633: (a) what is the government’s definition of the terms (i) legally obtained handgun, (ii) illegally obtained handgun; and (b) what is the government’s definition of the terms (i) in legal possession, (ii) legally obtained, and what is the difference between the definitions? With regard to Indigenous Services Canada and expenditures made so that long-term drinking water advisories could be lifted, since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount spent, broken down by year; (b) what has been the average and median cost associated with lifting an advisory; (c) of the advisories lifted so far, which one had the (i) lowest cost, (ii) highest cost, and what was the cost of each; and (d) what are the details of all contracts awarded by the government for work related to long-term drinking water advisories, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) summary of goods or services provided, (v) location of the advisory related to a contract? With regard to cannabis cultivation licences awarded by Health Canada since the legalization of cannabis: (a) how many cultivation licenses have been awarded each year, broken down by province or territory and by type of licence; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by the amount of cannabis authorized to be cultivated; (c) how much cannabis does the government estimate is produced each year by licence holders; and (d) of the amount in (c), how much and what percentage does the government estimate ends up (i) being sold to licensed distributors, (ii) being sold on the black market, (iii) used personally by the licence holder?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

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

With regard to the Specific Claims Research, Development and Submission Program for fiscal years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many applications for funding were received from (i) claims research units, (ii) bands and First Nations, (iii) Indigenous representative organizations; (b) how much funding was requested by each applicant type in (a); and (c) how much funding has been delivered to each applicant type in (a)? With regard to requests made under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), since January 1, 2020, broken down by year: (a) how many requests were received by IRCC; (b) of the requests in (a), in how many instances was (i) the information provided to the requestor within 30 days, (ii) an extension required; and (c) of the extensions in (b)(ii), how many were for a period of over (i) 30 days, (ii) six months, (iii) one year? With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many IRCC employees or full-time equivalents are currently on “Other Leave With Pay” (code 699); (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by continent and region of the world that the employee works from; (c) how many IRCC employees are currently working from home as opposed to working from an IRCC office location; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by continent and region of the world? With regard to deportation orders issued by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or the Canada Border Services Agency, since January 1, 2016, broken down by year the order was issued: (a) how many deportation orders were issued; (b) of the orders in (a), how many (i) resulted in the individual being deported, (ii) have since been rescinded, (iii) are still awaiting enforcement; and (c) what is the average and median amount time between the issuing of a deportation order and the individual being deported? With regard to the Tourism Relief Fund (TRF): (a) how much of the $500-million fund has been disbursed to the tourism sector as of October 25, 2022; (b) what are the details of all funding provided through the TRF, including the (i) recipient, (ii) location, (iii) amount provided; (c) how much funding has been distributed, broken down by province or territory and by type of tourism related business; (d) how many applications have been received, broken down by month since the TRF became available; (e) how many applications have been rejected or denied; (f) how many applications are currently being reviewed and finalized; and (g) how much money remains available in the TRF for eligible tourism applicants? With regard to the current backlog of applications received by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, broken down by immigration stream and type of application: (a) what is the length of the backlog; and (b) what is the number of backlogged applications? With regard to contracts provided by the government to McKinsey & Company since March 1, 2021, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on contracts; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) the amount, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the date and duration, (iv) the description of goods or services provided, (v) the topics related to the goods or services, (vi) the specific goals or objectives related to the contract, (vii) whether or not the goals or objectives were met, (viii) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process? With regard to the Connecting Families initiative announced in budget 2017 and the Connecting Families 2.0 program announced on April 4, 2022, broken down by fiscal year and by province or territory: (a) what was the total number of households deemed eligible for these initiatives; (b) of the households in (a), how many are eligible because they receive (i) the maximum Canada Child Benefit, (ii) the maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement; (c) how many households were advised that they were eligible for this program; and (d) what is the total number of households enrolled in these programs? With regard to all the communications and correspondence (emails, letters, text messages, Teams messages, etc.) related to the leases and contracts awarded by the federal government in connection with the Roxham Road crisis, since December 1, 2021, broken down by date: (a) what communications and correspondence were exchanged between Pierre Guay, the company Importations Guay Ltée and the company Groupe I.G.L. Inc. and (i) the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, (ii) the Canada Border Services Agency, (iii) the Department of Public Safety, (iv) the RCMP, (v) Public Services and Procurement Canada, (vi) the Office of the Prime Minister; (b) what communications and correspondence were exchanged between Public Services and Procurement Canada and the (i) Department of Public Safety, (ii) Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, (iii) Canada Border Services Agency; and (c) what communications and correspondence were exchanged between the Office of the Prime Minister and (i) Public Services and Procurement Canada, (ii) the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, (iii) the Department of Public Safety, (iv) the Canada Border Services Agency? With regard to the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Plan, broken down by province and territory, since their respective agreements were announced: (a) how many new childcare spaces have been created; (b) how many early childhood educator jobs have been created; (c) how much of the federal investment has been delivered; (d) to date, what is the average savings per child (i) with a 50 percent average fee reduction, (ii) at $10 per day; and (e) which jurisdictions have submitted annual progress reports and have made these reports available to the public? With regard to the sales of surplus Crown assets (Treasury Board code 4843, or similar), since January 1, 2019: (a) what are the details of all assets sold, including, for each sale, the (i) price or amount sold for, (ii) description of goods, including the volume, (iii) date of the sale; and (b) for each asset in (a), (i) on what date, (ii) at what price, was it originally purchased by the government? With regard to purchases of vehicles by the government since January 1, 2020, excluding vehicles used by either the RCMP or the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) what was the total number and value of vehicles purchased; and (b) what are the details of each purchase, including (i) the make, (ii) the model, (iii) the price, (iv) the number of vehicles, (v) whether the vehicle was a traditional, hybrid, or electric? With regard to collective agreements of the public service signed by the government since January 1, 2019, broken down by each collective agreement and by year between 2020 and 2023: what is the (i) detailed cost breakdown, (ii) overall cost increase for the government, of each added benefit or pay increase included in the agreement? With regard to Indigenous Services Canada and long-term drinking water advisories: (a) of the 136 advisories lifted between November 2015 and October 2022, how many have been re-issued, and what are the locations of the advisories that were re-issued; (b) have any advisories been lifted and later re-issued multiple times, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the (i) location, (ii) dates lifted, (iii) dates issued or re-issued; (c) on what date was each advisory in (a) (i) lifted, (ii) re-issued; (d) of the 67 drinking water advisories issued between November 2015 and October 2022, what are the details of each, including the (i) location, (ii) date added, (iii) reason for the advisory, (iv) date the advisory was lifted, if applicable; and (e) of the 31 advisories still in effect, what are the locations of each and on what date is each advisory expected to be lifted? With regard to government interactions with and expenditures related to Canada 2020, since January 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what are the details of all expenditures, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services, including the volume, (iv) details of related events, if applicable, including the dates, locations, and the title of events; (b) what are the details of all sponsorships the government has provided to Canada 2020, including the event (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) sponsorship amount, (iv) title, and the purpose of sponsoring the event; and (c) what are the details of all gifts, including free event tickets, received by ministers, ministerial staff or other government officials from Canada 2020, including the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) value, (iv) description of the gift, including the volume and the event date, if applicable? With regard to the government's approach to the transferring of prospective technology from Canada to the People's Republic of China: (a) what assessments has the government made of the possibility that technologies developed in Canada in partnership with Huawei could be used to aid human rights violations in China or anywhere else, and what were the results of such assessments; (b) what plans does the government have to ensure that technologies being developed in Canada will not be used by the People's Republic of China for surveillance purposes that would hinder the fundamental freedoms of the citizens of Hong Kong; (c) what assessments has the government made of Huawei's ability to gain access to Canada's technology through joint ventures and labs located in Canada; (d) what assessments has the government made of the possibility of unwarranted cross-border data transfer to the People's Republic of China through products and services provided by firms like Hikvision, Huawei and other Chinese companies, and what were the results of such assessments; (e) what assessments has the government made of the possibility of the People's Republic of China arbitrarily cutting off access to technology required to maintain systems in Canada, and what was the result of that assessment; (f) what assessments has the government made of the possibility of Chinese companies changing routing conditions or using network shaping tactics to increase the likelihood that traffic will move across connections where China has the ability to monitor it, and what were the results of such assessments; (g) what assessments has the government made of the risk to national security associated with hosting one of the stations of the Beidou satellite, and what were the results of such assessments; and (h) what policies and plans does the government have in place for the protection of data transferred via the subsea systems connecting Canada, the east coast of the United States, and England that was updated by Huawei in 2007? With regard to the details of certain contracts being withheld from disclosure, since January 1, 2016: (a) what was the total (i) number, (ii) value, of contracts which had their details withheld due a national security exemption, broken down by year; (b) what is the total (i) number, (ii) value, of contracts which had their details withheld for a reason other than national security, broken down by year and reason for withholding the details; and (c) what is the total (i) number, (ii) value, of contracts related to the government's response to COVID-19 which had their details withheld, broken down by year and reason for withholding the details? With regard to the Tourism Relief Fund (TRF): (a) how much of the minimum $50 million of the TRF's regional priorities funding has been disbursed to the indigenous tourism sector as of October 26 and 27, 2022; (b) what are the details of all funding provided through the TRF for indigenous tourism initiatives, including, for each instance, the (i) indigenous ownership status of each recipient, (ii) recipient, (iii) location, (iv) amount provided; (c) how did the federal government verify applicants who claimed indigenous ownership; (d) how much indigenous funding has been distributed in each province or territory, in total, and broken down by type of indigenous tourism related business; (e) how many total indigenous applications have been received by the federal government; (f) how many indigenous applications did the federal government receive for each month since the TRF became available; (g) how many indigenous applications have been rejected or denied by the federal government; (h) how many indigenous applications are still being reviewed; and (i) how much money remains available in the TRF for eligible indigenous tourism applicants?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair has received notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. member for Burnaby South to rise and make a brief intervention.