|
Q-1509
|
Thursday, October 1, 2026 |
With regard to Service Canada and its administration of the Canadian Dental Care Plan: (a) broken down by eligibility period, renewal or new application, and department with the mismatched data, how many renewals or new applications were refused due to data errors between application information and the Social Insurance Registry or Canada Revenue Agency data; (b) how many inquiries to the Canadian Dental Care Plan program information phone line have been received, broken down by eligibility period for a refused application due to a data mismatch issue; (c) how many inquiries by member of Parliament offices have been received, broken down by eligibility period for a refused application due to a data mismatch issue; (d) what public communication, data validation or identity authentication processes are being considered to reduce the number of application refusals due to data mismatch issues; (e) what is the government’s explanation for the government allowing the Canada Revenue Agency, along with certain other different programs, such as the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance, to do client validation and authentication with existing mismatched data for other programs, but not allowing the Canadian Dental Care Plan to process or authenticate similar client information for renewals and new applications; (f) how many applications for the Canadian Dental Care Plan are received through a delegate, broken down by eligibility period; (g) what vulnerability prevents a delegate from applying online; (h) what projects are being undertaken to allow a delegate to apply or renew online; (i) what is the service standard for attaching a delegate document (power of attorney, etc.) to a file related to the plan; (j) can a delegate make an in-person application at a Service Canada location with a delegate document validated; (k) what action is Service Canada taking to implement the government’s “tell us once” commitment to allow a client to submit a delegate document, an address change or other update on personal information to Service Canada once and have it shared with all Service Canada programs; (l) what legislation or regulation exists that prevents Service Canada from sharing client information between programs, such as power of attorney, with client consent; and (m) what action is the government planning to take to remove or improve this process to enable clients to submit documents and simple personal information changes to Service Canada once? |
Awaiting response |
Wednesday, November 18, 2026 |
|
Q-1477
|
Wednesday, September 23, 2026 |
With regard to federal approval for the geotechnical drilling and in-water investigative work associated with the Ontario Pumped Storage Project in Georgian Bay at the Army Training Centre – Central (Meaford, Ontario): (a) what federal permits, authorizations, approvals, determinations, advice or notifications were required or provided prior to commencement of the work; (b) which federal departments and agencies reviewed, authorized or were consulted for the work; (c) what conditions were imposed to protect fish habitat, species at risk, drinking water sources, aquatic ecosystems, and navigable waters; (d) on what dates were federal approvals issued, or guidance provided; (e) what are the details, including the summary of the contents, of the guidance provided to ensure the offshore sampling was compliant with federal legislation; (f) what monitoring activities or inspections are occurring to ensure compliance with federal legislation and regulation; (g) are the permits and guidance publicly available for review; (h) are the applicants required to disclose this guidance; (i) considering the drilling is occurring in support of the project, is a Section 82 review under the Impact Assessment Act required for this activity; and (j) if the answer to (i) is negative, what test or measure invokes a Section 82 review for this project in terms of requirement for preparatory work? |
Awaiting response |
Monday, November 16, 2026 |
|
Q-1375
|
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 |
With regard to data from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre and Criminal Firearms Strategic and Operational Support Services for years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, broken down by year: (a) what devices are included in data sets for firearms traces; (b) does data include replica guns, non-operative guns, airsoft, or pellet guns; (c) how is data in (b) indicated separately from working firearms legally imported to Canada or illegally imported into Canada; (d) how many firearms traces did the Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre complete, broken down by whether the firearm was used in a crime or for another reason; (e) of the firearms in (d), how many (i) were identified as legally imported into Canada, (ii) were identified on the restricted or prohibited registry, (iii) were reported as stolen or lost, (iv) were listed as prohibited based on the firearms reference table in May 2020, December 2024, or March 2025, (v) were of unknown origin, (vi) were reasonably suspected as being illegally imported, (vii) were reasonably suspected as being domestically manufactured and are considered an operable firearm that strikes a primer on a cartridge with a projectile, (viii) were suspected as being a replica, non-operable, airsoft, or pellet gun, (ix) had identifying markers or serial number removed, (x) were of unknown origin; (f) how many firearms traces were long guns; (g) how many firearms traces were handguns; (h) how many firearms traces were considered assault-style firearms as per government definition; (i) what is the government’s definition for assault-style firearms; (j) does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police collect data on gun crimes for assault-style firearms; (k) how many traces were conducted for assault-style firearms, broken down by (i) firearms reference number, (ii) make, (iii) model; (l) what crimes were suspected for traces, broken down by (i) type of crime (homicide, attempted homicide, accidental death, suicide, theft, trafficking, unsafe use, unauthorised possession, unsafe storage), (ii) type of firearm (handgun, long gun, assault style firearm), (iii) firearms legally possessed, illegally possessed, or stolen, (iv) firearm origin (imported, produced domestically legally, suspected as being trafficked into Canada or unknown), (v) those suspected of connection to gang crime; (m) for firearms traces suspected of a connection to gang crime, what are the details, broken down by (i) firearms type as per point (l), (ii) legally possessed, illegally possessed or stolen firearms, (iii) firearm origin (imported, produced domestically legally, suspected as being trafficked into Canada or unknown); (n) does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or Public Safety Canada receive data from the province of Ontario or Quebec on firearms tracing; and (o) if the answer to (n) is affirmative, what is the data provided by the provinces for points (a) to (l)? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1279
|
Tuesday, June 9, 2026 |
With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-1053, and the claim that producing and validating a comprehensive response would require manual collection of information and cross-referencing of records that could not be completed within the allotted time: (a) did Public Safety Canada require participants to the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program to disclose their Possession and Acquisition License number, Registration Certificate Number, Firearm Identification Number or Firearms Reference Table number; (b) if the response to (a) is no, how does Public Safety Canada intend on facilitating the removal of restricted firearms from the restricted firearms registry when firearm owners’ property is collected for compensation; (c) if the response to (a) is no, what reason was this key value information not collected for the program; (d) if the response to (a) is yes, what limitation prevents the Possession and Acquisition License number from being used as a key value to provide the statistics requested in Order Paper question Q-1053; (e) what is the estimated timeline to align these datasets to publish the statistical data requested in Order Paper question Q-1053; (f) will the government publish this data when it becomes available, yes or no; (g) if the answer to (f) is no, how does the government intend to ensure an evidence-based firearms policy; (h) in reference to Public Safety Canada’s answer to point (a) of Order Paper question Q-1053, what statistics does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's firearms program retain to ensure Possession and Acquisition License holders are not a risk to public safety that is systemically tracked; (i) how many participants in the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program were identified as not posing a risk to public safety as defined and systemically tracked in the response to part (h); (j) how does Public Safety Canada intend to measure and publish statistics regarding the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program if the program is not cross-referencing with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's Firearms Program data; (k) how many firearms are listed on the Restricted Firearms registry; (l) of those identified in part (k), how many were identified through submissions to the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program; and (m) what additional specific data points will Public Safety Canada publish regarding the outcome of the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program and on what deadline? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1277
|
Tuesday, June 9, 2026 |
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency misallocated payments by a taxpayer, since the 2021-22 fiscal year: (a) how many phone inquiries, Canada Revenue Agency account messages, letters or cases were tracked that were due to a misallocation of payments, broken down by fiscal year; (b) how many letters or correspondence were sent to taxpayers as a result of unresolved misallocated payments, broken down by fiscal year; (c) what was the estimated labour cost to the Canada Revenue Agency for resolving misallocated payments listed, broken down by fiscal year; (d) what process improvements did the Canada Revenue Agency undertake to further limit misallocated payments and ensure adherence to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and the right “to receive entitlements and to pay no more and no less than what is required by law”; (e) what reviews of misallocations did the Canada Revenue Agency undertake, and what corrective action was taken as a result; (f) has the Canada Revenue Agency further adjusted process changes from its response to the Taxpayer Ombudsman report “Getting It Right: Investigation of service and fairness issues arising from the misallocation of payments by the Canada Revenue Agency” and what changes have been made; (g) how many payment clerks did the Canada Revenue Agency employ, broken down by fiscal year; (h) how does the number of payment clerks in (g) compare to the number of payment clerks employed by Canada Revenue Agency in the 2019-20 fiscal year; (i) how many complaints has the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson received regarding misallocated payments, broken down by fiscal year; and (j) what is the estimated number of taxpayers who, as of the date of this question, have unallocated payments in unreconciled general accounts, and what is the total amount of these payments? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1259
|
Thursday, June 4, 2026 |
With regard to ongoing trade negotiations between Canada and Mercosur member countries and the potential impact on Canada’s beef sector: (a) what are the details of all consultations that the government has held since December 12, 2025, with Canadian beef producers, provincial cattle organizations, national agricultural organizations, industry associations, or other interested parties, in which concerns related to Mercosur beef imports, beef market access, or impacts on the Canadian beef sector were raised, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) who conducted the consultation, (iii) the names and titles of participants and organizations, (iv) which concerns were raised and by which organizations, (v) the government’s response to each concern; (b) what are the details of all consultations that the government has held since December 12, 2025, with Canadian beef producers, provincial cattle organizations, national agricultural organizations, industry associations, or other interested parties in which support was expressed for increased trade with Mercosur countries or for expanded beef market access under a Canada-Mercosur trade agreement, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) who conducted the consultation, (iii) the names and titles of participants and organizations, (iv) the reasons stated for support, broken down by each organization that expressed support; (c) what are the details of all written submissions or correspondence received by the government related to Mercosur negotiations, since December 12, 2025, including, for each, the (i) organization represented, (ii) date received, (iii) title, (iv) summary of the contents, including any concerns raised or supportive statements, (v) type of document; (d) what are the details, including methodology, dates, and findings of any projections, forecasts, economic models, impact assessments, or other analyses that the government has completed since December 12, 2025, regarding (i) the potential impact of Mercosur beef imports on Canadian cattle prices, farm revenues, herd expansion, domestic processing capacity, or Canadian market share, (ii) the expected benefits of a Canada-Mercosur trade agreement for Canadian farmers, ranchers, processors, or agricultural exporters; (e) what are the details of all assessments, analyses, briefing materials, scientific evaluations, or risk evaluations related to cattle diseases like Foot-and-mouth disease, animal health standards, biosecurity measures, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, or traceability systems in Mercosur countries which have been prepared since December 12, 2025, including, for each, the (i) title, (ii) completion date, (iii) country or countries examined, (iv) risk area examined, (v) findings or conclusions; (f) what analysis has the government completed since December 12, 2025, regarding compensation, transition supports, safeguard measures, or other mitigation measures for Canadian beef producers related to any potential increase in beef imports from Mercosur countries, including, for each, (i) the title, (ii) the completion date, (iii) the measure analyzed, (iv) who conducted the analysis, (v) the findings or conclusions; and (g) what are the details of any contracts signed related to any of the consultations or analyses conducted on this topic, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value, (iv) description of the goods or services provided? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1055
|
Monday, April 13, 2026 |
With regard to the National Broadband Map which Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada uses to determine eligibility of federally funded support for Internet Service Provider projects to meet the federal government’s goal of providing high-speed internet (up to 50/10 Mbps) or broadband internet to all Canadians and broken down by fiscal year beginning in 2020-21: (a) how many discrepancies or errors of the National Broadband Map have been reported to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, broken down by (i) overreport of coverage, (ii) underreport of coverage; (b) what actions does Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada take to investigate such reports; (c) how many reports have been corrected or closed with no action taken, broken down by Internet Service Provider; (d) does Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada take any enforcement action when Internet Service Providers overreport service and this overreport results in the area not being considered for future federal funding; (e) what areas were identified as incorrectly receiving broadband coverage listed by street, town and province or territory; (f) how does a member of the public report to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada that the National Broadband Map is incorrect in their area; (g) how many communications has Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada received from the general public or Internet Service Providers regarding National Broadband Map errors, broken down by (i) date of communication, (ii) type (email, phone call, letter, through the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada account feedback tool), (iii) action taken, (iv) origin of the report (member of the public, Internet Service Provider, Parliamentarian's office); (h) how many errors on the National Broadband Map resulted in an area not receiving federal funding for a broadband project; and (i) what actions is the government taking to identify errors on the National Broadband Map and ensure all Canadians including those in areas considered the “last mile” receive reasonable internet options from Internet Service Providers? |
Answered |
Friday, May 29, 2026 |
|
Q-1054
|
Monday, April 13, 2026 |
With regard to Health Canada’s Consumer Product Safety Program since 2019-20 and broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many complaints, notifications or consumer product incident reports were received by Health Canada regarding manufactured non-compliant products in the Canadian market; (b) of the products in (a), how many were (i) manufactured in Canada, (ii) imported into Canada from elsewhere, broken down by country of primary manufacturer; (c) of the products in (a), what North American Industry Classification System subsector did these products fall under; (d) how many of the consumer product incident reports in (a) relate to ASTM F2057-23 – Standard Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units; (e) what was the average response timeline to the complainant that submitted a consumer product incident report, broken down by year; (f) how many consumer product incident reports have not received a response; (g) does the complainant receive confirmation that a full investigation was completed, and of the outcome of this investigation; (h) how many investigations are currently open, broken down by the year the consumer product incident report was submitted; (i) how many products have been removed from the Canadian market based on consumer product incident reports, broken down by the year the consumer product incident report was submitted; and (j) what administrative monetary penalties or enforcement actions have been issued through the Consumer Product Safety Program, broken down by (i) the year the complaint was received, (ii) the manufacturer or importer name, (iii) the amount of the fine, (iv) whether a compliance agreement was implemented, (v) whether the fine was paid or unpaid? |
Answered |
Friday, May 29, 2026 |
