Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-34, under Government Orders.

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following question period on March 31, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake rose on a point of order and accused me of making statements about her. I want to unequivocally again deny that any such remarks were made by me, but in reaction to that assertion, I used unparliamentary language. While I hope everyone can understand why my reaction was so strong, I have the utmost respect for this House, for the rules that govern it and for all hon. colleagues. That is why I rise to withdraw, and apologize for, the inappropriate use of the word “lie”.

I want to thank the hon. member for her apology. She is rising on a question of privilege, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a question of privilege in relation to the incidents that occurred on March 31 between me and the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. During question period, the member and I had an exchange. Subsequent to question period, the member rose on a point of order and made accusations that I believe constitute a prime facie case of privilege. Under House of Commons Procedure and Practice, members are not to make statements that are to intentionally mislead the House. I submit that there is a prima facie case to find that the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake intentionally misled the House, and as a result my privilege was violated. I refer you to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, edited by Marc Bosc and André Gagnon, specifically under the section “Misuse of Freedom of Speech”. It reads: The privilege of freedom of speech is an extremely powerful immunity and on occasion Speakers have had to caution Members about its misuse. Ruling on a question of privilege in 1987, Speaker Fraser spoke at length about the importance of freedom of speech and the need for care in what Members say:... “Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them. Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour. All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.” I would also like to draw your attention to the section under the heading “Freedom from Obstruction, Interference, Intimidation and Molestation. It is this section that outlines the grounds for a prima facie case of privilege by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake when she made intentional and misleading statements about me. In this section, it reads as follows: It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information. The unjust damaging of a Member’s good name might be seen as constituting an obstruction if the Member is prevented from performing his or her parliamentary functions. In 1987, Speaker Fraser stated: “The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment. The normal course of a Member who felt himself or herself to be defamed would be the same as that available to any other citizen, recourse to the courts under the laws of defamation with the possibility of damages to substitute for the harm that might be done. However, should the alleged defamation take place on the floor of the House, this recourse is not available.” There are several examples and rulings regarding matters of privilege being raised by members that constitute prima facie cases of privilege. I would like to quote one of these examples, as I believe it relates to the question of privilege here today. In the section under “Debates”, on October 6, 2005, pages 8,473 to 8,474, in particular on page 8,474, the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In this report to the House, the committee stated, “Members of Parliament are public figures, and their reputations and integrity are among their most valuable assets. We are all cognizant of the public cynicism that exists regarding our political system.” In the rulings determining whether or not a prima facie case of privilege has been demonstrated, the statements or actions in question had to be done so in an intentional manner to mislead, and therefore causing the intimidation or interference of a member to perform their duties. I would like to outline why I feel the actions of the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake were intentional and, in fact, manufactured. Let me first acknowledge that if members are shouting across the aisle and statements are misheard, and then repeated incorrectly, I do not believe this constitutes an intentional misleading of the House. For the most part, I think hon. members accept when they have perhaps said things they should not have or if they have misheard, and they rise and clarify. This was not the case on March 31 between the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and me. Several members who were sitting around me throughout Question Period rose and confirmed that the statement, nor a statement even remotely like the one alleged by the member, was not heard to be said by me. Further to this, I immediately responded to the allegations made, and unequivocally informed the House that I never made such statements or statements even remotely similar to the one alleged. In the House, we consider each and every one of us to be honourable. As such, I would have expected that after I clarified what had actually been said, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake would have accepted that as truth and retracted her statement. As a result of these allegations made against me, my office received several phone calls, emails and social media reactions that were threatening and aggressive. The incident has left not only me but also my staff vulnerable to threats. This is why the drafters of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice correctly acknowledge that acts of intimation or any impediment to a member being able to perform their duties can come in many forms, including through the act of intentionally making misleading statements in an effort to damage a member's reputation. This intimidation serves to make a member think twice before using their voice to call out the actions of others, out of fear that if they are seen to be challenging, then they might be subject to accusations that put them or their staff in danger of threats and harassment. I have spent my career advocating for more women to enter politics. I did not grow up thinking this is a place for someone like me. I hope future generations see a different version of political service, one that is more representative of the diversity of this country. Women in this place are constantly reminded that this place was not actually built for them. We are reminded of this fact when we walk these very halls. I have spoken out on many occasions against misogyny in this place, including calling out the Leader of the Opposition's use of embedded hashtags that target anti-women groups and spread messages of violence against women. I believe that these misleading statements against me could have been an act of retribution, an attempt to damage my reputation in order to intimidate and silence me. This place is to hold vigorous debates, challenge opinions and represent our communities. What we should never accept is the manufacturing of statements for the sole purpose of maligning another member's reputation for pure political gain. This is why I raise the question of privilege today. This conduct is an offence to this House, to all members in it, as misleading accusations could be made about any one of us, without recourse. I believe a prima facie case of violation of privilege occurred here. In hopes to resolve this matter and get on with the work on behalf of Canadians, I would find the matter satisfied should the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake retract her statements and apologize to this House. I appreciate the Speaker's attention in hearing this question of privilege. I will conclude by saying that despite the efforts by some, I will not be intimidated and I will not be silenced, because that would only serve to reward the bad-faith actions and does nothing to encourage more women and overall more diversity in this place, which I firmly believe would make this place better and benefit all Canadians.

I will take the matter under consideration and come back to the House, should I see fit. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on the same point.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP as well reserves the right to intervene later in this case.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to table a notice of ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, and other measures. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Arctic Parliamentarian Summit — Nordic and North American Collaboration, from September 11 to September 13, 2022.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to present a petition from a number of my constituents concerned about the establishment of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. Many veterans have suffered significant injuries over service and are not adequately compensated. The petitioners call upon the Minister of Veterans Affairs to remove any statutory limits on back pay eligibility on the disability allowances they are entitled to and work with individual veterans to ensure just and due compensation for disability allowance, and in a timely manner.

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1256, 1259, 1261, 1263, 1265, 1267, 1270 and 1271.

With regard to disability benefit payments provided by Veterans Affairs Canada, and broken down by province or territory and by fiscal year since 2019-20: (a) how many individuals receiving disability benefit payments have had their payments clawed back because they received compensation under the Merlo Davidson class action lawsuit; (b) how many notifications of the claw back were sent, including by (i) letter, (ii) email, (iii) phone call; (c) what is the total amount of disability benefit payments that have been clawed back, including the (i) total dollar value, (ii) percentage of benefits distributed to individuals in (a); (d) how many appeals have been made to restore or reverse claw backs by individuals in (a); (e) for each appeal in (d), how many appeals (i) were successful, (ii) were denied, (iii) are still under consideration; and (f) what is the total amount of costs incurred by Veterans Affairs Canada to (i) issue notices of claw backs to veterans, (ii) perform audits of benefits received by individuals in the Merlo Davidson class action lawsuit, (iii) challenge appeals made by individuals having their compensation clawed back? With regard to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), since June 18, 2019: (a) how many Canadian businesses are investing in projects in the AIIB, broken down by year; (b) how much Canadian money is spent on projects in the AIIB, broken down by year; and (c) of the projects listed in (a), how many of these businesses are operating through, either directly or indirectly, the Canadian government? With regard to inquiries and reports received by the RCMP in a language other than English or French, broken down by year for each of the last five years: (a) how many oral inquiries or reports did the RCMP receive, broken down by language; (b) how many written inquiries and reports, including emailed or online, did the RCMP receive, broken down by language; and (c) of the items in (b), how many were translated? With regard to the statement by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Commissioner, Bob Hamilton, at the House of Commons Standing Committee of Public Accounts on January 26, 2023, that it "wouldn't be worth the effort" to fully review $15.5 billion in potentially ineligible Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) payments: (a) did the Minister of National Revenue sign off or agree with this decision and, if not, why did the minister not intervene; (b) did the CRA perform a cost-benefit analysis prior to making the decision not to review these payments and, if so, (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) what were the results; (c) how many recipients and what total dollar amount is represented by the potentially ineligible CEWS payments that the CRA considers to be (i) worth the effort, (ii) not worth the effort, to review; (d) what dollar amounts are represented by the amounts in (c) (i) and (ii); and (e) what is the estimated cost to the CRA of fully reviewing the $15.5 billion of payments? With regard to processing delays for applications for employment insurance benefits, as of February 10, 2023, broken down for Canada and Quebec (as a number, not a percentage): (a) how many unprocessed employment insurance applications had a processing time of over (i) 28 days, (ii) 60 days, (iii) 90 days; and (b) how many unprocessed employment insurance applications were attributable to fraud or attempted fraud? With regard to the government’s response to the Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review on the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, prepared by the Honourable Louise Arbour in May 2022: (a) what is the total number of working groups and internal committees formed to respond to the recommendations; (b) what are the details of all working groups and committees formed, including the (i) title or name, (ii) recommendations being examined, (iii) number of anticipated or scheduled meetings, (iv) date of the first meeting, (v) number of members, (vi) names and titles of all individuals participating; and (c) for each committee or working group in (b), is the Minister of National Defence a member and, if so, what is the expected role of the minister? With regard to the government's early learning and child care plan: (a) what is the breakdown in the number of affordable (i) spaces, (ii) daycares or similar facilities, that have been created or signed into the program, broken down by each federal riding; and (b) if a breakdown of (a) by federal riding is not available, what is the breakdown by municipality or metropolitan region? With regard to government expenditures on home Internet services for public service employees: (a) what is the government's policy on which employees are eligible to have their home Internet service paid for; (b) as of January 1, 2023, how many employees have had their home Internet service paid for by the government, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity; and (c) what was the total in expenditures by the government related to home Internet services for employees during the (i) 2022 calendar year, (ii) 2021-22 fiscal year?

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1254, 1255, 1257, 1258, 1260, 1262, 1264, 1266, 1268, 1269, 1272-1280, 1283 and 1284 could made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

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

With regard to the government’s commitment in budget 2017 to provide $5 billion over 10 years to support mental health initiatives: (a) how much of the money has been spent to date; and (b) what is the breakdown of how the money in (a) was spent, including which initiatives have been funded and how much has been spent on each initiative? With regard to the funding of operational stress injury clinics and satellite services by Veterans Affairs Canada, broken down by province or territory: (a) what are the details of each clinic or satellite service, including (i) the name of the clinic, (ii) the number of veterans, Canadian Armed Forces members, or active RCMP members served, (iii) the services available, (iv) whether the clinic is for-profit, (v) the regulatory oversight body; (b) what are the details of the funding arrangement with each clinic or satellite service in (a), including the (i) duration of the existing arrangement, (ii) amount received, (iii) services to be provided with public funding; and (c) for each clinic in (a), what is the process for complaint escalation for common issues, such as quality of service received, client satisfaction, or wait times? With regard to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's announcement of the return-to-office plan for federal public servants, broken down by office building or workspace in the National Capital Region: (a) were the buildings assessed by heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) professionals to improve ventilation; (b) were new HVAC systems installed or improved to reduce the transmission of airborne viruses; (c) was ventilation improved in the buildings or workspaces; (d) were new workspaces provided or created with the intention of creating physical distance between public servants; (e) was proper ventilation in the workspaces or buildings considered in the decision to have employees return to the office; and (f) is personal protective equipment available at no cost to employees in these buildings or workplaces? With regard to citizenship ceremonies completed in 2022, broken down by month: (a) how many citizenship ceremonies took place (i) in person, (ii) virtually, (iii) in a hybrid way; (b) how many individuals (i) were scheduled to become Canadian citizens, (ii) became Canadians citizens at the ceremonies, (iii) were considered no-shows, broken down by each type of ceremony in (a); (c) how many individuals scheduled to become citizens requested to attend a ceremony (i) in person, (ii) virtually; and (d) of the requests in (c), how many were granted? With regard to the statement made by the Minister of Labour on February 9, 2023, in the Senate that "I need more workers in the oil and gas industry, not less. We need more.": (a) has the Minister of Labour taken any action aimed at increasing the number of workers in the oil and gas sector and, if so, what action has been taken; (b) has the Minister of Labour taken any action aimed at ensuring that oil and gas companies are able to retain workers currently employed in the oil and gas sector; (c) how many oil and gas workers have received training through the government's Just Transition Initiative to date, in total and broken down by program; (d) how many workers does Natural Resources Canada estimate are no longer working in the oil and gas sector as a result of the government's Just Transition strategy; and (e) what action, if any, is the Minister of Natural Resources taking to get more workers in the oil and gas industry? With regard to Health Canada's funding for PrescribeIT and e-Prescribing: (a) how much funding has the government provided to Prescribe IT (i) directly, (ii) indirectly, through the Canada Health lnfoway, broken down by year since November 4, 2015; (b) what are Health Canada's estimates based on the reports it has received as to how many (i) doctors, (ii) pharmacists, used PrescribeIT, broken down by each of the last five years; (c) what is the breakdown of (b) by province or territory; and (d) what metrics is the government using to measure the success or failure of Prescribe IT and how has the project measured up to the metrics? With regard to information services (IS) employees (Treasury Board code 305) within the civil service, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many IS workers are currently employed by the government, in total; and (b) how many executives or workers, at the EX level or higher, do the IS workers report to, in total? With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and post-payment assessment for compliance of Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) recipients: (a) what risk parameters are used in assessing whether CEWS payments need post-payment verification; (b) how is each risk parameter used in assessing whether CEWS payments need post-payment verification and are all CEWS payments assessed for post-payment verification using the same formula; (c) what data was provided to the Office of the Auditor General in conjunction with their 2022 audit of the CEWS outlined in 2022 Report 10 published by the Office of the Auditor General; (d) considering the statement made by Bob Hamilton in his testimony at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on January 26, 2023, what specific factors are great indicators of whether someone is eligible for the CEWS or not; (e) what data sources are considered to identify risk and build audit plans; (f) how is each data source used in the identification of risk and construction of an audit plan; (g) until January 31, 2021 inclusive, how many companies who received the CEWS were audited for suspected non-compliance, and how many of those audits (i) have been completed, (ii) were undertaken only after the company's final CEWS payment period, (iii) resulted in a finding of non-compliance; and (h) how many companies at a high risk of non-compliance were not audited due to a low potential for recovery? With regard to the Government of Canada’s discussions with the United States of America on the Safe Third Country Agreement, since January 1, 2022: (a) how many meetings, virtual, in-person or by phone, have there been where Roxham Road was discussed; (b) for each meeting in (a), which public office holders participated in those discussions, including their full name and title; (c) what briefing documents, internal memos or emails were written in preparation for or as a result of those meetings; (d) which departments were involved in preparing for those discussions? With regard to applications for registration under the Indian Act, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year since January 2016: (a) what is the total number of applications (i) received, (ii) processed; (b) what is the total number of applications that were (i) approved, (ii) denied; (c) how many applications for registration were processed within (i) less than six months, (ii) six to eight months, (iii) 12 to 18 months, (iv) 18 to 24 months, (v) longer than 24 months; (d) what is the total number of applications in (a) from individuals affected by known sex-based inequities in the Indian Act; and (e) as of February 9, 2023, what is the current backlog of applications for registration that remain unprocessed? With regard to section 31 of the Conflict of Interest Act: what are the details of all administrative costs which were incurred by and reimbursed to public office holders, since November 4, 2015, including, for each cost, the (i) title of the public office holder who incurred the cost, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of items reimbursed? With regard to pharmaceutical drugs, treatments and therapies authorized by Health Canada since January 1, 2022: (a) how many treatments or therapies for rare diseases, known as orphan drugs, were granted authorization; and (b) what are the details of each drug in (a), including the (i) name of the drug, (ii) date of the approval, (iii) purpose of the drug, including the disease or condition treated by the drug? With regard to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive (FTHBI) announced by the government in 2019, from September 1, 2019, to date: (a) how many applicants have applied for mortgages through the FTHBI program, broken down by province and municipality; (b) of the applicants in (a), how many have been approved and have accepted mortgages through the FTHBI program, broken down by province and municipality; (c) of the applicants listed in (b), how many approved applicants have been issued the incentive in the form of a shared equity mortgage; (d) what is the total value of incentives, shared equity mortgages, under the program that have been issued, in dollars; (e) for applicants who have obtained mortgages through the FTHBI, what is the (i) value of each mortgage granted, (ii) average mortgage value of the mortgages granted; and (f) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers through the FTHBI? With regard to section 19 of the Conflict of Interest Act: (a) what is the government's understanding of Parliament's requirement that "Compliance with this Act is a condition of a person's appointment or employment as a public office holder"; (b) does the understanding described in (a) vary with respect to (i) the Prime Minister, (ii) ministers and ministers of state, (iii) parliamentary secretaries, (iv) ministerial exempt staff, (v) other public office holders; and (c) what impact has the Prime Minister's multiple breaches of the act had on the government's ability to require ministers and parliamentary secretaries to abide by the act? With regard to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's February 14, 2023, recommendation "that the government consider mandating all ministers and parliamentary secretaries to receive training from the [Commissioner's] Office": (a) does the government accept the commissioner's recommendation and, if so, when will training (i) begin, (ii) be completed by; (b) on what date is the Prime Minister scheduled to receive the additional training; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why; and (d) what training have ministers, including the Prime Minister and parliamentary secretaries, received from the Commissioner's Office since November 4, 2015, broken down by (i) minister or parliamentary secretary, (ii) date of the training, (iii) subject-matter, topics or rules covered during the training? With regard to compliance measures taken by the Canada Revenue Agency, broken down by income bracket and for each of the last five tax years: (a) what was the total number of filers in each income bracket; (b) what was the number of requests for additional documentation; (c) what was the number of audits conducted; (d) what was the number of criminal investigations instigated; (e) what is the rate per thousand tax filers represented by each action from (b) to (d); and (f) how much additional taxes were due as a result of each action from (b) to (d)? With regard to the government's National Housing Strategy, since November 4, 2015: (a) has any funding been provided through the strategy to (i) Encasa Financial Inc., (ii) Mainstreet Equity Corp., (iii) Pan Pacific Mercantile Group, (v) Atira Women's Resource Society, (vi) Southwest Properties limited, (vii) Saskatchewan First Nations Water Association Inc.; and (b) what are the details for each payment in (a), including the (i) recipient, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) funding stream under which the money was allocated, (v) project description or purpose of the funding? With regard to federal contracts given to Deloitte Canada for the purpose of creating a nation-wide system to track the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccinations: (a) what is the value of all contracts, including, for each, the (i) date of the contract, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) products to be delivered, (iv) timeline for delivery; (b) on what date was the nation-wide computer system rolled out; (c) with which provincial and territorial vaccination systems was the national system connected to; (d) what enhancements, improvements, and added functionality did the national system, created by Deloitte Canada, make; (e) what are the details of all national system outages, including, for each, the (i) duration of the outage, (ii) functionality and services impacted, (iii) costs incurred by the federal government to restore functionality, (iv) number of users impacted; and (f) does the government own the intellectual property for any products created under the terms of these contracts? With regard to the Department of National Defence, and in reference to vaccine doses sorted by brand listed on the government's response to Order Paper question Q-1069: (a) what was the number of each type of injection, including anti-COVID-19 injections, administered to each member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF); (b) what was number of myocarditis cases that were reported after receiving the anti-COVlD-19 injections; (c) what are the details, including the numbers, of all non-serious and serious adverse events after receiving anti-COVID-19 injections; and (d) for each non-serious and serious event listed in (c), what is the breakdown by age of the CAF members? With regard to federal contracts awarded since fiscal year 2015-16, 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? With regard to services provided to Export Development Canada (EDC) by Accenture related to the administration of the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) program: (a) what are the details of all contracts given to Accenture, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) products to be delivered, (iv) timeline for delivery; (b) what is the total cost of external services procured for the administration of CEBA; (c) what is the total amount of internal resources at EDC committed to the administration of CEBA; and (d) what is the total amount of external services procured through Accenture for the (i) repayment of loans, (ii) collection of loans deemed ineligible after delivery, (iii) collection of fraudulently obtained loans?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.