|
Q-1553
|
Thursday, October 15, 2026 |
With regard to Canadian exports of military goods, components, technologies and firearms, Canada’s economic and diplomatic ties with the United Arab Emirates, and Canada’s response to alleged violations of sanctions or contributions to the commission of international crimes, in relation to the war in Sudan: (a) what is Canada’s official response to the September 2026 report of the United Nations' Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for the Sudan, which found that individuals and entities based in the United Arab Emirates had provided weapons and military supplies to the Rapid Support Forces throughout the ongoing conflict in Sudan; (b) given the demonstrable link between the United Arab Emirates and the supply of weapons to the Rapid Support Forces and reports that Canadian-made weapons have appeared in Sudan, since 2023, has Global Affairs Canada conducted any review of Canadian export permits, brokering permits, end-use certificates, or destination-based exemptions potentially relevant to military goods, components, technologies, or firearms that may have been diverted to Sudan, and, if so, (i) what were the findings of that review, (ii) has the government contacted any Canadian company, foreign government, intermediary, broker, or end-user in relation to possible diversion of Canadian-made military goods, components, technologies, or firearms to Sudan, (iii) what measures, if any, has the government taken to strengthen end-use monitoring, post-shipment verification, or diversion-risk assessment for exports to states or intermediaries with possible links to the conflict in Sudan; (c) has the Minister of Foreign Affairs ordered, requested, or received any assessment of whether Canadian military exports, brokering activity, components, technologies, or firearms could contribute, directly or indirectly, to serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law in Sudan, and, if so, (i) on what dates were such assessments requested, completed, and received and which departments or agencies contributed to those assessments, (ii) did any assessment consider risks of diversion through third countries, intermediaries, brokers, private security actors, or non-state armed groups, (iii) did any assessment consider risks of serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children, (iv) did any assessment result in the suspension, cancellation, amendment, denial, or review of any export or brokering permit; (d) what changes, if any, has the government made since 2023 to its export-control guidance, permit-review process, end-use verification, or diversion-risk methodology as a result of the conflict in Sudan; (e) has the government (i) assessed whether current destination-based exemptions or permit exemptions could limit Canada’s ability to track the final destination or end use of Canadian-made military goods, components, technologies, or firearms, (ii) assessed whether such exemptions may create diversion risks in relation to conflicts such as Sudan, (iii) considered removing, narrowing, or amending any destination-based exemption in light of diversion risks, and, if not, why not, and what specific mechanisms does the government use to verify end use after export where there is a risk of onward transfer to a conflict zone such as Sudan; (f) has the government explored options for the introduction of greater arms control instruments, for example Post-Shipment Controls, to ensure that conventional arms exported from Canada will not be diverted to unauthorized end-users, specifically within the context of Sudan; (g) has the government ever cancelled or not approved export permits for a company that was suspected of sending weapons in violation of Canadian or United Nations sanctions or where there were concerns that international crimes and serious human rights violations would be perpetrated; (h) what is the process for the minister to re-assess whether a company is meeting the criteria for an export permit once an allegation of misuse has been made, and is there a (i) transparency requirement and does the government publish its findings about the re-assessment regardless of the outcome, (ii) civil society consultation process by which members of the public can provide information to feed into the re-assessment process, and if so, where would Canadians find that information; (i) what is the process by which Canada investigates complicity or aiding and abetting of companies in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide; (j) has Canada identified Canadian companies or Canadian individuals involved in companies that have violated United Nations sanctions or contributed to the commission of international crimes committed in Sudan, and, if so, (i) what action has the government taken with regard to these violations, (ii) has the government contacted the Canadian or Canadian-owned companies that have allegedly sent or sold their weapons to belligerents in Sudan, including the Rapid Support Forces, and, if so, what was the nature of those communications, and, if not, why not; (k) has the government raised information and evidence of the involvement of Canadian companies in sending weapons to be used in Sudan, via the United Arab Emirates, in meetings between the Prime Minister or other government ministers and their United Arab Emirates counterparts, and, if so, (i) on what dates, (ii) who attended these meetings; (l) has Canada sought additional end-use assurances from United Arab Emirates officials to ensure that Canadian weapon systems will not be supplied to conflict parties in Sudan; (m) is Canada presently investigating any Canadian individuals or Canadian-owned companies whose military weapons and hardware have been used in Sudan for brokering controlled arms without a permit or brokering sales to an embargoed location (Sudan); (n) has the government investigated how Canadian weapons from Sterling Cross appeared in Sudan, and, if so, (i) what are the results of this investigation, (ii) what action has the government taken in order to ascertain how these rifles appeared in Sudan, (iii) has the government confirmed these weapons were originally exported from Canada to the United Arab Emirates; (o) given the August 2026 announcement that Canada has imposed sanctions on Canadian-owned Streit Group, which is headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, in response to reported sales of vehicles into Russia, have any individuals from the Streit Group been investigated or charged for continuing to run a sanctioned business; (p) does Canada intend to open criminal prosecutions into the role of Canadian corporate actors or individuals in the commission of international crimes in Sudan, under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; (q) while Director of Operations and Stakeholder Relations in the Prime Minister’s Office, did Canada’s new Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Angad Singh Dillon, take part in any briefings, meetings or other discussions on (i) Canada’s military and defence sales in the Middle East, including to the United Arab Emirates, (ii) Canada’s sanctions policy, (iii) Canada’s response to the war in Sudan, and, if so, on what dates; (r) what was the extent of Angad Singh Dillon’s work on Canada’s defence trade; (s) what was the extent of Angad Singh Dillon’s work on the Canada-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement; (t) as current Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, what is Angad Singh Dillon’s mandate with regard to (i) trade, specifically with Canada’s defence sector and its sales to the region, (ii) the promotion of human rights; (u) what responsibility does the Canadian embassy in the United Arab Emirates have for verifying the end user of Canadian weapons post-delivery; (v) what work do Canadian officials in the United Arab Emirates currently do to monitor the use of Canadian-made weapons post-delivery; (w) will the government of Canada endorse calls for a United Nations arms embargo to be expanded across the entirety of Sudan; (x) have Canadian authorities, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Department of Justice, opened a structural investigation into the situation in Sudan, and, if not, why not; and (y) what financial contributions is Canada currently making to international justice mechanisms for the investigation and prosecution of war crimes in Sudan?
|
Awaiting response |
Wednesday, December 2, 2026 |
|
Q-1512
|
Monday, October 5, 2026 |
With regard to meetings, consultations, discussions and communications between the Government of Canada, including the Minister of Transport, the minister’s office, the Department of Transport and any other federal department, agency, Crown corporation or government entity, and airport authorities, airport operators, airlines, private investors, financial institutions, pension funds, labour unions, workers’ organizations or other stakeholders concerning changes to airport ownership, governance, operations, privatization, private-sector investment, lease arrangements or airport rent arrangements since January 1, 2025: (a) how many meetings, consultations, discussions or communications have taken place with (i) the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, (ii) the Vancouver Airport Authority, (iii) Aéroports de Montréal, (iv) the Calgary Airport Authority, (v) any other National Airports System airport authority or operator; (b) for each meeting, consultation, discussion or communication referred to in (a), what were the details, including the (i) date, (ii) participants and their titles, (iii) federal department, agency, Crown corporation or ministerial office represented, (iv) airport authority, operator, company, investor, union, workers’ organization or other stakeholder represented, (v) format, (vi) general subject matter discussed; (c) how many meetings, consultations, discussions or communications referred to in (a) specifically included a discussion of (i) the sale, transfer or privatization of an airport, airport authority or any portion of airport operations, (ii) the conversion of a not-for-profit airport authority into a for-profit or share-capital entity, (iii) the federal government taking over, replacing, restructuring or otherwise changing the governance or ownership of an existing not-for-profit airport authority, (iv) the sale, transfer, lease or concession of any airport operations, facilities, services or assets to a private-sector entity, (v) private equity investment in airport operations or infrastructure, (vi) pension-fund investment in airport operations or infrastructure, (vii) the creation or use of for-profit subsidiaries, joint ventures, limited partnerships or other corporate structures involving private investors, (viii) the outsourcing, contracting out, subcontracting or private operation of airport services or operations, (ix) changes to existing ground leases or the extension of airport authority leases, (x) changes to airport rent formulas or other payments made by airport authorities to the Government of Canada, (xi) the valuation of airport authorities, airport assets or airport operations for the purpose of considering a sale, transfer, privatization or alternative ownership model, (xii) any proposed timeline, target date, implementation date, decision date or legislative timetable for any of the measures described in (i) to (xi); (d) for each discussion identified in (c), what specific proposal, option, model or transaction was discussed, including any reference to (i) the portion or portions of airport operations potentially affected, (ii) the airport assets or facilities potentially affected, (iii) the proposed ownership or governance structure, (iv) the proposed role of private investors, (v) the proposed role of the federal government, (vi) the proposed role of the existing airport authority, (vii) any proposed changes to employees’ employment, wages, benefits, pensions, collective agreements or working conditions, (viii) any proposed timeline or anticipated date for a decision or implementation; (e) how many meetings, consultations, discussions or communications concerning any of the matters described in (c) or (d) took place with (i) labour unions, (ii) union federations, (iii) airport workers, (iv) airport worker associations, (v) labour councils, (vi) workers’ organizations, (vii) other organizations representing airport employees or contracted airport workers; (f) for each meeting, consultation, discussion or communication identified in (e), what were the details, including the (i) date, (ii) participants and their titles, (iii) union, workers’ organization or employee group represented, (iv) federal department, agency, Crown corporation or ministerial office represented, (v) airport authority, operator or private-sector entity represented, if applicable, (vi) format, (vii) general subject matter discussed; (g) since January 1, 2025, has the Government of Canada (i) requested or received proposals, business cases, valuations, financial models, feasibility studies, legal opinions, investment proposals or other analyses concerning the sale, transfer, privatization or alternative ownership of any airport or airport operation, (ii) commissioned or conducted any analysis of the potential financial value of any airport authority, airport operation or airport asset for the purpose of considering a change in ownership or governance, (iii) established or discussed an internal target date or timeline for making a decision regarding airport privatization, alternative ownership models, private investment or changes to airport authority governance, (iv) established or discussed any process or timeline for transitioning any airport operation, asset or authority from its current not-for-profit model to a private, for-profit or other ownership or governance model; (h) for each matter identified in (g), what were the details, including the (i) date initiated, (ii) federal department, agency or office responsible, (iii) external parties consulted, (iv) stated purpose, (v) current status, (vi) anticipated date for completion, decision or implementation; (i) for each of the airport authorities listed in (a), what was the total number of meetings, consultations, discussions or communications involving (i) the Minister of Transport, (ii) the Minister of Transport’s office, (iii) the Deputy Minister of Transport, (iv) the Associate Deputy Minister of Transport, (v) assistant deputy ministers or other senior officials from the Department of Transport, (vi) officials from the Privy Council Office, (vii) officials from the Department of Finance, (viii) officials from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, (ix) any other federal department, agency or Crown corporation involved in assessing airport ownership, governance, investment or privatization; (j) what meetings, consultations, discussions or communications has the Government of Canada had with private equity firms, pension funds, institutional investors, banks, infrastructure funds, investment firms or other potential private investors concerning the potential ownership, financing, operation or acquisition of Canadian airports or portions of airport operations since January 1, 2025, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the participants and titles, (iii) the organization represented, (iv) the federal department or agency represented, (v) the subject matter discussed, (vi) the airport or airport operation discussed, if any, (vii) any proposed timeline or next steps; and (k) does the Government of Canada have any current plan, proposal, policy, legislative initiative, negotiation, consultation or process that could result in (i) the sale or transfer of an airport or portion of airport operations, (ii) the replacement, restructuring or takeover of a not-for-profit airport authority, (iii) the conversion of an airport authority or airport operation to a for-profit model, (iv) the transfer of airport operations or assets to private investors, (v) changes to the existing not-for-profit airport authority model, and, if so, what are the details, including any proposed timeline, decision point or implementation date? |
Awaiting response |
Friday, November 20, 2026 |
|
Q-1511
|
Monday, October 5, 2026 |
With regard to meetings, consultations, discussions and communications between the Government of Canada, including the Minister of Health, her office and Health Canada, and the Government of Alberta or any other organization concerning Alberta’s Bill 11, dual practice, private health care, private health insurance or the privatization of medically necessary health services since January 1, 2025: (a) how many meetings, consultations, discussions or communications have taken place with (i) the Government of Alberta, (ii) health care providers or provider organizations, (iii) private health care companies or clinics, (iv) private health insurance providers, including Alberta Blue Cross, (v) pharmaceutical companies or pharmaceutical industry organizations, (vi) pharmacy organizations, (vii) health care worker unions or other workers’ organizations, (viii) patient organizations, (ix) private equity firms, pension funds or other potential investors, (x) any other relevant stakeholder; (b) for each meeting, consultation, discussion or communication referred to in (a), what were the details, including (i) the date, (ii) the participants and their titles, (iii) the organizations represented, (iv) the federal officials or political staff involved, (v) the subject matter discussed, including any discussion of Bill 11, dual practice, private insurance, private payment for medically necessary services or privatization, (vi) any proposed next steps or timelines; (c) has the minister or her officials discussed with any party (i) the expansion of private insurance coverage for medically necessary health services, (ii) private providers delivering services currently provided through the public system, (iii) physicians providing publicly and privately paid medically necessary services, (iv) the sale, transfer or outsourcing of publicly delivered health services, (v) any proposed changes to the Canada Health Act or its application to Alberta; and (d) does the Government of Canada have a timeline for any federal decision, intervention, agreement or other action concerning Alberta’s Bill 11 or related changes to private financing or delivery of medically necessary health care, and, if so, what is that timeline? |
Awaiting response |
Friday, November 20, 2026 |
|
Q-1308
|
Monday, June 15, 2026 |
With regard to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program at the Department of Justice Canada: (a) what is the current budget of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program and when was its budget last increased; (b) for each year from 2020 to 2026, what were the staffing levels at the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program; (c) does the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program have the jurisdiction and ability to investigate companies or their executives for involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, and, if so, which companies, corporations, or executives have been investigated, on what dates and what was the outcome of each; (d) does the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program have jurisdiction over the crimes against humanity of apartheid and enforced disappearances, whether committed in Canada or abroad; (e) has any of the evidence collected through structural investigations contributed directly to a criminal prosecution in Canada, at an international court, or in another state; (f) has the portal into the structural investigation into the Hamas-Israel conflict been opened, (i) if so, where can it be accessed, (ii) if not, by what date will it be made accessible; (g) does the government agree that it has an obligation under the Geneva Conventions to investigate and prosecute suspected war criminals residing on its territory, or to deport them to a state or institution that will do so; (h) does the government agree that it has an obligation under the Genocide Convention to investigate and prosecute suspected war criminals residing on its territory; (i) what is the government’s policy towards accountability measures for suspected perpetrators of international crimes residing in Canada; (j) since the establishment of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program in 1998 (i) how many investigations of suspected perpetrators of international crimes have resulted in either an immigration remedy, or criminal prosecution action by the government, (ii) how many immigration remedies (citizen revocation, deportations, etc.) have been processed, (iii) how many suspected perpetrators of international crimes have been criminally prosecuted in Canada, (iv) what explains the imbalance between the number of immigration remedies versus criminal prosecutions in Canada for these crimes; (k) has Canada followed up with any states to which individuals suspected of committing international crimes have been deported, and, if so, which cases and which states; (l) when choosing to remove a suspected perpetrator of international crimes from Canadian territory, does the government seek assurances that deported individuals will subsequently be investigated or prosecuted, (i) if so, how does the government consider the human rights situation in the receiving country, (ii) if the government does not seek assurances of prosecution from the receiving state, why not, (iii) is the government aware of any cases of suspected perpetrators of international crimes deported from Canada who have gone on to commit further crimes; (m) is the government currently preparing for the criminal prosecution of any suspected perpetrators of international crimes, and, if so, how many? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1272
|
Tuesday, June 9, 2026 |
With regard to damage to, or destruction of, Canada-funded development and humanitarian projects in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including those attributed to Israeli forces and settlers, since 2023: (a) what is the government's current policy with regard to such damage or destruction; (b) what estimate has Canada made of (i) the number, (ii) the cost to Canada, of aid-funded projects in the West Bank and Gaza which have been demolished by Israeli authorities and does Canada plan to fund their replacement; (c) what funding has Canada provided for development and humanitarian projects in Gaza, broken down by year, by themes, and by projects; (d) what are the losses or impacts to Global Affairs Canada funded projects in Gaza referred to (c), broken down by (i) organization, (ii) municipality, (iii) development theme, (iv) date, (v) funding amount, (vi) nature of the loss or impact (destruction, damage, displacement, confiscation, interruption of activities); (e) what funding has Canada provided to the West Bank Protection Consortium broken down by (i) year, (ii) theme, (iii) projects; (f) what are the losses or impacts to West Bank Protection Consortium, projects partially or fully funded by Canada, broken down by (i) organization, (ii) municipality, (iii) development theme, (iv) date, (v) funding amount, (vi) nature of the loss or impact (for example, destruction, damage, displacement, confiscation, interruption of activities); (g) what funding has Canada provided for development and humanitarian projects in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem for projects other than those referred to above; (h) what are the losses or impacts to those Canadian-funded projects, broken down by (i) organization, (ii) municipality, (iii) development theme, (iv) date, (v) funding amount, (vi) nature of the loss or impact (destruction, damage, displacement, confiscation, interruption of activities); (i) since requesting an investigation into Israel’s destruction of the Canada Well in Gaza in 2024, has the government of Canada (i) taken further action with regard to this case, (ii) requested Israel pay for the damage to courthouses in Tulkarm and Jenin, funded by Canadian development assistance and inaugurated in 2017; (j) on what dates, and for which projects, has the government communicated with the Government of Israel with regard to damaged or destroyed projects or structures funded by Canada; (k) does the government intend to demand financial compensation from Israel for damaged or demolished Canadian-funded development projects in the West Bank, including whether it has examined diplomatic or legal options similar to those announced by the Government of Ireland in April 2026; (l) has the government called for the restitution or compensation of Canadian-funded humanitarian assets which have been demolished, dismantled or confiscated by Israel, similar to multiple requests by the European Union; and (m) what formal proceedings has the government considered or initiated in order to seek financial compensation from Israel for destroyed, damaged or impacted Canadian-funded development and humanitarian projects? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1201
|
Thursday, May 7, 2026 |
With regard to the condition of federal government buildings and workplaces and the presence of pests, since January 1, 2020: (a) what buildings have reported the presence of (i) mice, (ii) rats, (iii) bats, (iv) bed bugs, (v) other pests; (b) what was the treatment program, as well as the cost associated with the treatment, for each case in (a); (c) was there any reoccurrence of pests in the building or workplace following treatment; (d) in buildings that were found to have the presence of mice, was the type of mouse identified; (e) in any instances where deer mice were identified as being present in a federal workplace, was there testing for hantavirus; (f) what steps are taken to inform employees when a pest has been identified in a workplace; and (g) are accommodations provided to employees who regularly report to work in a building that has identified the presence of pests? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-1200
|
Thursday, May 7, 2026 |
With regard to the government’s announcement on February 5, 2026, requiring federal public service workers to be in office for four days a week beginning July 6, 2026: (a) which metrics or assessments were used to determine that this policy will deliver better services to Canadians and strengthen their confidence in the public service; (b) what metrics or assessments were used to determine that this decision will assist the government in hiring the best talent across Canada; (c) how does this policy support diversity, inclusion and accessibility objectives; (d) what metrics or assessments were used to measure how this decision evolves the public service culture of excellence; (e) which internal reports, impact assessments, and records of consultation were produced prior to this announcement that justify the shift from three to four days in office; (f) what are the projected costs associated with reconfiguring or reacquiring office space to accommodate the increased frequency of in-person work, and how does this align with the government’s stated goal to reduce its office portfolio by 50%; and (g) what specific evidence or comparative analyses were used to determine that a four-day requirement provides a superior return on investment or service delivery outcome compared to the existing three-day requirement? |
Answered |
Monday, September 21, 2026 |
|
Q-958
|
Thursday, March 19, 2026 |
With regard to the Interim Federal Health Program: (a) what are the projected gross savings of the Interim Federal Health Program co-payment model for 2026–27 and 2027–28, broken down by benefit category (prescription, dental, vision, counselling, devices, etc.); (b) what are the projected administrative costs (including information technology services, system changes, provider communications, call centres, dispute resolution, payment reconciliation and auditing services) of the program for 2026–27 and 2027–28, broken down by fiscal year, and what are the projected net savings after administrative costs; (c) what share of net savings is expected to come from beneficiary payments versus reduced utilization or foregone services; (d) what assumptions has the government made to produce the savings estimate in (c), including the assumed percentage change in prescription fills (by drug class, dental claims, vision claims, counselling claims, assistive device claims and collection failure or non-payment rates), and what evidence did the government rely on for each assumption; (e) what is the projected distribution of co-payment amounts paid per beneficiary ($0, $1–10, $11–25, $26–50, $51–100, $101+, per month), broken down by beneficiary class and province or territory; (f) what are the details of the monthly claims data for the 24 months preceding May 1, 2026, broken down by province or territory and beneficiary class, including the (i) number and value of claims, broken down by benefit category, (ii) number of prescriptions adjudicated and paid, broken down by drug class, (iii) provider participation counts, broken down by provider type (pharmacy, dentist, counsellor, etc.), (iv) denial or rejection rates, broken down by reason; (g) what analysis, including any sensitivity analyses, has Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada conducted to estimate the incremental costs to provincial and territorial systems arising from Interim Federal Health Program co-payments, and what are the details, including the (i) additional costs associated with emergency department visits, hospitalizations, ambulance use and complications from delayed dental and mental health care, (ii) additional costs associated with medications and services used for prevention and treatment of communicable diseases (including tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis and sexually transmitted infections), (iii) downstream public health costs (including transmission and outbreak response); (h) how did the government come up with the analyses in (g), and what are the details, including (i) the chosen methodology, (ii) the chosen parameters, (iii) the results, (iv) whether co-payments apply; (i) do co-payments, effective May 1, 2026, apply to resettled refugees, including government-assisted refugees and privately sponsored refugees, and, if so, (i) what is the projected number of Interim Federal Health Program beneficiaries affected in 2026–27, broken down by immigration category and province or territory, (ii) what Charter or compliance analyses were conducted, if any, (iii) what are the estimated costs associated with implementation and potential rollback; (j) for the 2026-27 and 2027-28 fiscal years, what share of projected beneficiary co-payments is expected to be paid by the top 10% of payers, broken down by beneficiary class and province or territory; (k) for the 2026-27 and 2027-28 fiscal years, how many beneficiaries are projected to require (i) three or more, (ii) five or more, (iii) 10 or more, prescriptions per month, broken down by age group and beneficiary class; (l) what is Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s projected provider attrition rate attributable to co-payment collection requirements, broken down by provider type and province or territory; (m) what guidance is issued when a beneficiary cannot pay at point of service, including whether care may proceed and any escalation procedures; (n) what mechanisms exist to record “service refused due to inability to pay,” and what reporting will be required; (o) how is the government coordinating with provincial and territorial plans for government-assisted refugees and privately sponsored refugees, and what are the details, including the (i) average, (ii) distribution, of time from arrival to eligibility for provincial health coverage and drug plans, broken down by province or territory; (p) how many Interim Federal Health Program beneficiaries are projected to be eligible for the Canada Dental Care Plan during 2026–27, and what measures exist to prevent duplication of coverage or coverage gaps; (q) what modelling exists on cost shifting between the Interim Federal Health Program, provincial pharmacare and youth drug programs; (r) what are the projected reductions in Interim Federal Health Program costs under scenarios where Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada processing times are reduced by 25%, 50%, 75%, (or to specified service standards), and what is (i) the projected cost of additional Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada capacity required for each of the above scenarios, (ii) the net fiscal impact of backlog reduction scenarios versus co-payment savings; (s) what indicators will Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada track (or model) regarding changes in workforce participation attributable to reduced access to medication, vision care, assistive devices, and mental health services; (t) did Employment and Social Development Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or Finance Canada do intergovernmental analysis on the impacts in (s), and, if so, what were the findings; and (u) what modelling exists on increased disability-related costs arising from foregone supplemental care? |
Answered |
Wednesday, May 6, 2026 |
