Wednesday, November 26, 2014 (No. 149)

Questions

The complete list of questions on the Order Paper is available for consultation at the Table in the Chamber and on the Internet. Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.

Q-653 — June 19, 2014 — Mr. Carmichael (Don Valley West) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper numbers Q-264 through Q-644, what is the estimated cost of the government's response for each question?

Q-7462 — October 9, 2014 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s “24 Seven” videos: for each video work posted to date, (a) who owns the copyright in the video work; (b) does anyone, apart from the copyright owner specified in (a), own copyright in any individual image, video clip, audio clip, musical work or other work which constitutes part of the larger video work; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, (i) who is that copyright owner, (ii) when and how was their permission to use the content secured, (iii) what is the duration of the permission which was granted, (iv) if permission was granted for valuable consideration, what was the dollar amount of that consideration; (d) who owns the moral rights in respect of the video work; (e) does anyone, apart from the moral rights owner specified in (d), own moral rights in any individual image, video clip, audio clip, musical work or other work which constitutes part of the larger video work; and (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, (i) who owns these moral rights, (ii) when and how was their permission to use the content secured, (iii) what is the duration of the permission which was granted, (iv) if permission was granted for valuable consideration, what was the dollar amount of that consideration, (v) were the moral rights waived?

Q-7472 — October 9, 2014 — Ms. Freeland (Toronto Centre) — With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Toronto Centre, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

Q-7482 — October 9, 2014 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — With regard to the Canada and European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), has the federal government done any analysis of the following, and, if so, what are the details: (a) the changes required to provincial laws and regulations in order for Canada to ratify CETA; (b) each province’s commitment in implementing those changes; (c) the current status of those changes; (d) when these changes are expected to be completed; and (e) other steps required to implement CETA and for CETA to come into force?

Q-7492 — October 16, 2014 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill) — With respect to the Action Plan to Address Family Violence and Violent Crimes Against Aboriginal Women and Girls mentioned by the Minister of Status of Women and found on the Status of Women Canada’s Website: (a) what is the definition of the word “community” as used; (b) what is the definition of the word “aboriginal” as used; (c) how much of the funding mentioned in the Action Plan was announced for the first time in the Action Plan; (d) what criteria were used to justify the funding granted through the Action Plan; (e) what consultation was conducted in order to create the Action Plan, (i) who was the consultation conducted with, (ii) what are the details of any records or documents pertaining to these consultations; (f) how much of the overall funding discussed in the Action Plan is reserved exclusively for (i) First Nations peoples, (ii) Inuit peoples, (iii) Metis peoples; (g) how will the funding and programs mentioned in the Action Plan specifically include or exclude First Nations, Inuit and Metis regardless of residence; (h) how will Inuit, Metis and First Nations fairly benefit from funds and programs promised in the Action Plan; (i) what criteria will be used to ensure fair distribution; (j) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the Community Safety Plans, (i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (k) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the funding allocated to Justice Canada in order to “break intergenerational cycles of violence and abuse”, (i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (v) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (l) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the funding secured for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)’s Family Violence Prevention Program, (i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (v) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (m) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the new 5 million dollars over 5 years secured for Status of Women Canada, (i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (v) is this funding to be distributed through the existing Women’s Program, (vi) will this funding be renewable after two years, (vii) will this funding include projects pertaining to research or advocacy, (viii) how will this funding be distributed fairly among First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples, (ix) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (n) of the 241 million dollars invested in the On-Reserve Income Assistance program, what percentage of this funding was allocated to women, (i) what gender-based analysis has been conducted for this program, (ii) how much of this funding was made available to Inuit, (iii) how much of this funding was made available to Metis peoples, (iv) how much of this funding was made available to First Nations; (o) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the 1 million dollars secured for Status of Women Canada’s Women’s Program, (i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (v) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (p) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the 1.5 million dollars secured for Justice Canada to support Aboriginal Victims Family Violence Prevention Program, (i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (v) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (q) how much money did the government spend on the Family Violence Prevention Program of AANDC between 2010 and 2015; (r) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the 158.7 million dollars secured for the Family Violence Prevention Program of AANDC, (i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (v) how was the need for this funding determined; (s) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the 18.5 million dollars that will directly support shelters, (i) how do shelters receive this funding, (ii) how are shelters expected to account for that funding, (iii) will this funding be made available to build new shelters, (iv) what percentage of this funding will be accessible to Inuit, (v) what percentage of this funding will be accessible to Metis, (vi) how much of this funding will be allocated to each reservation, (vii) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; and (t) how much funding did on-reserve shelters receive yearly from 2010 to 2015?

Q-7502 — October 16, 2014 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — With regard to the Minister of Transport’s commitment on April 23, 2014 to “immediately remov[e] the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from dangerous goods service by directing the phase-out of tank cars that have no continuous reinforcement of their bottom shell”: (a) how many of these tank cars remained in service in each month since last April; (b) when does the government expect this phase-out to be complete; (c) what constraints limit the government’s ability to complete the phase-out; and (d) have any of these tank cars been involved in accidents since last April, and if so, where and when?

Q-7512 — October 16, 2014 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to the government’s commitment on July 3, 2013, to accept 1,300 Syrian refugees: (a) how many Syrians have been granted refugee status in Canada since July 3, 2013; (b) how many Syrian refugees have been admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013, broken down by (i) total amount, (ii) month; (c) how many of the Syrian refugees admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013 have been government-sponsored, broken down by (i) total amount, (ii) month; (d) how many of the Syrian refugees admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013 have been privately-sponsored, broken down by (i) total amount, (ii) month; (e) of the government-sponsored Syrian refugees admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013, how many were admitted from (i) Syria, (ii) Iraq, (iii) Jordan, (iv) Lebanon, (v) Turkey, (vi) elsewhere; (f) of the privately-sponsored Syrian refugees admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013, how many were admitted from (i) Syria, (ii) Iraq, (iii) Jordan, (iv) Lebanon, (v) Turkey, (vi) elsewhere; (g) of the privately-sponsored Syrian refugees admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013, how many were sponsored by (i) sponsorship agreement holders, (ii) groups of five, (iii) community sponsors; (h) how many applications to privately sponsor Syrian refugees have been received by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, broken down by (i) total amount, (ii) sponsorship agreement holders, (iii) groups of five, (iv) community sponsors; (i) how many applications were received on behalf of Syrians seeking refugee status in Canada, from (i) January 1, 2011 to July 3, 2013, (ii) July 3, 2013 to present; (j) of the Syrians granted refugee status in Canada since July 3, 2013, how many applied from within Canada; (k) of the applications received on behalf of Syrians seeking refugee status in Canada, how many remain in progress, dating from (i) January 1, 2011 to July 3, 2013, (ii) July 3, 2013 to present; (l) what is the average processing time for applications received from January 1, 2011 until July 3, 2013, on behalf of Syrians seeking refugee status in Canada, broken down by (i) overall time, (ii) privately-sponsored refugee applicants, (iii) government-sponsored refugee applicants; (m) what is the average processing time for all applications received from January 1, 2011 until July 3, 2013, on behalf of individuals seeking refugee status in Canada, broken down by (i) overall time, (ii) privately-sponsored refugee applicants, (iii) government-sponsored refugee applicants; (n) what is the average processing time for applications received since July 3, 2013, on behalf of Syrians seeking refugee status in Canada, broken down by (i) overall time, (ii) privately-sponsored refugee applicants, (iii) government-sponsored refugee applicants; and (o) what is the average processing time for all applications received since July 3, 2013, on behalf of individuals seeking refugee status in Canada, broken down by (i) overall time, (ii) privately-sponsored refugee applicants, (iii) government-sponsored refugee applicants?

Q-7522 — October 16, 2014 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to the merger of the former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the former Canadian International Development Agency: (a) what are the details regarding all consultants hired or retained by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to advise on, or assist with, the merger, including (i) the date of hiring or retention, (ii) the salary or stipend, if applicable, (iii) the duration of the contract, if applicable, (iv) the position appointed; (b) how many contracts have been granted in total as a result of, or in association with, the merger process; (c) what is the value of the contracts identified in (b), broken down by (i) total amount, (ii) amount by month; and (d) which companies or individuals received these contracts?

Q-7532 — October 20, 2014 — Ms. Boivin (Gatineau) — With regard to the closure of the Service Canada Centre at 85 Bellehumeur Street in Gatineau: (a) why was this point of service closed; (b) what studies or statistics support the closure of the point of service and how were they produced; (c) when was the decision made; (d) were the employees and the union affected by the centre’s closure informed of the decision and, if so, when; and (e) did the government analyze the impact of the closure of the Gatineau point of service on its clientele as regards the service location and the area (right to and nature of services) and, if so, (i) how, (ii) when was this study completed, (iii) when was the Minister informed about the study, (iv) what is the title of the study?

Q-7542 — October 20, 2014 — Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard) — With regard to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC): (a) how many applications did CIC receive from Filipinos under the special fast-tracking measures for victims of Typhoon Haiyan, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (b) how many applications were approved, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (c) how many applications were rejected, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (d) how many applications were rejected for failing to meet the “significantly affected” threshold; (e) how many applications are pending; (f) how many Filipinos came to Canada as a result of the special measure, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (g) how many came as (i) permanent residents, (ii) temporary residents; (h) how many remain in Canada today; (i) how many applications were proactively identified by CIC for fast-tracking, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (j) how many rejected applications involved a minor; (k) what was the number of full-time equivalent staff allocated to processing these applications, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (l) what percentage of applications took more than 60 days to process; and (m) what was the budget allocated to processing these applications?

Q-7552 — October 20, 2014 — Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard) — With regard to the Federal Internship for Newcomers Program: (a) how many applications did Citizenship and Immigration Canada receive, (i) in total, (ii) by year, (iii) by month; (b) how many applications were approved, (i) in total, (ii) by year, (iii) by month; (c) how many applications were rejected, (i) in total, (ii) by year, (iii) by month; (d) how many positions were available, (i) in total, (ii) by year, (iii) by month; (e) how many applicants have remained in Canada today; (f) how many applicants have found full-time, permanent employment; and (g) what was the budget allocated to this program, (i) by year, (ii) by city?

Q-7562 — October 21, 2014 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to ministerial staff, broken down for each year from 2004 to 2014: (a) how many individuals work within each ministry; (b) in what city do they work; (c) if they stopped working at the ministry, what range of severance packages were they entitled to receive; and (d) what severance package did they receive, (i) on average, (ii) in total?

Q-7572 — October 21, 2014 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With regard to ministerial delegations abroad, including those where individual Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Secretaries, or Senators represented the government, from 2010 to 2011 inclusive: (a) for each trip, what was the (i) total cost to each department concerned, (ii) total cost for accommodation, (iii) total cost for travel, (iv) total cost for gifts, (v) total cost for meals and incidentals, (vi) complete list of delegation members, (vii) complete itinerary, (viii) reason for each trip; (b) for each member of the delegation, what was the (i) total cost to each department concerned, (ii) total cost for accommodation, (iii) total cost for travel, (iv) total cost for gifts, (v) total cost for meals and incidentals, (vi) reason for inclusion on the delegation; and (c) for each contract for accommodations, (i) was the contract competitively or non-competitively sourced and, if not, (ii) what was the rationale for non-competitive sourcing?

Q-7582 — October 21, 2014 — Mr. Scott (Toronto—Danforth) — With regard to the transfer, detention and torture of Canadian citizens Maher Arar, Ahmad Elmaati, Abdullah Almalki, and Muayyed Nureddin in Syria and Egypt: (a) what were the complete costs incurred by the government related to the O’Connor Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, including all related Federal Court and other legal proceedings (the “O’Connor Inquiry proceedings”) for the (i) Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), (ii) Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), (iii) Department of Justice, (iv) former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), (v) Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA), (vi) Department of National Defence (DND), (vii) Privy Council Office (PCO), (viii) any other department or agency involved; (b) what were the particular costs of the O’Connor Inquiry proceedings in each of the following categories, (i) the costs incurred by each Commission of Inquiry itself, (ii) the staff costs of the Department of Justice lawyers and paralegals who appeared before, advised on, or assisted in the conduct of the O’Connor Inquiry proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (iii) all external legal counsel fees and disbursements paid to other lawyers and paralegals who appeared before, advised on, or assisted in the conduct of the O’Connor Inquiry proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, or who acted as amici or otherwise in relation to those proceedings, (iv) all expert consultant fees, including, but not limited to, expert witness fees, paid to expert consultants who appeared or prepared to appear before, advised on, or assisted in the conduct of the O’Connor Inquiry proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (v) the staff costs of all ministers, employees, or officials who appeared or prepared to appear as witnesses before the O’Connor Inquiry proceedings, including per diem or other contract compensation paid to former ministers, employees, or officials who appeared or prepared to appear as witnesses, (vi) the staff costs of all ministers, employees, or officials who acted in a support role related to the O’Connor Inquiry proceedings, including per diem or other contract compensation paid for third party support services in that regard, (vii) any additional intervenor or other funding provided by the government to other participants in the O’Connor Inquiry proceedings, (viii) any other rental, transcript, photocopying, and other product or service disbursement costs incurred that were directly related to the O’Connor Inquiry proceedings, (ix) any other costs incurred that were directly related to the O’Connor Inquiry proceedings, and with respect to any such costs, what is the breakdown amount incurred by category, (x) where staff costs could not be provided for any of the foregoing for any reason, what is the full-time equivalent hours or days recorded by the lawyers, paralegals, ministers, employees or officials, for billing, inter-departmental charge-back, budget tracking, reporting or other purposes within the government; (c) what were the complete costs related to the Iacobucci Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Ahmed Elmaati, Abdullah Almalki, and Muayyed Nureddin, including all related Federal Court and other legal proceedings (the “Iacobucci Inquiry proceedings”), for the (i) CSIS, (ii) RCMP, (iii) Department of Justice, (iv) former DFAIT, (v) CBSA, (vi) DND, (vii) PCO, (viii) any other department or agency involved; and (d) what were the particular costs of the Iacobucci Inquiry proceedings in each of the following categories, (i) the costs incurred by the Commission of Inquiry itself, (ii) the staff costs of the Department of Justice lawyers and paralegals who appeared or prepared to appear before or assisted in the conduct of the Iacobucci Inquiry proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (iii) all external legal counsel fees and disbursements paid to other lawyers who appeared before, advised on, or assisted in the conduct of the Iacobucci Inquiry proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, or who acted as amici or otherwise in relation to those proceedings, (iv) all expert consultant fees, including but not limited to expert witness fees, paid to expert consultants who appeared or prepared to appear before or assisted in the conduct of the Iacobucci Inquiry proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (v) the staff costs of all ministers, employees, or officials who appeared or prepared to appear as witnesses before the Iacobucci Inquiry proceedings, including per diem or other contract compensation paid to former ministers, employees, or officials who appeared as witnesses, (vi) the staff costs of all ministers, employees, or officials who acted in a support role related to the Iacobucci Inquiry proceedings, including per diem or other contract compensation paid for third party support services in that regard, (vii) any additional intervenor or other funding provided by the government to participants in the Iacobucci Inquiry proceedings, (viii) any other rental, transcript, photocopying, and other product or service disbursement costs incurred that were directly related to the Iacobucci Inquiry proceedings, (ix) any other costs incurred that were related directly related to the Iacobucci Inquiry proceedings, and with respect to any such costs, what is the breakdown amount incurred by category, (x) where staff costs could not be provided for any of the foregoing for any reason, what are the full-time equivalent hours or days recorded by the lawyers, paralegals, ministers, employees or officials, for billing, inter-departmental charge-back, budget tracking, reporting or other purposes within the government?

Q-7592 — October 21, 2014 — Mr. Scott (Toronto—Danforth) — With regard to the transfer, detention and torture of Canadian citizens Maher Arar, Ahmad Elmaati, Abdullah Almalki, and Muayyed Nureddin in Syria and Egypt: (a) what were the complete costs incurred by the government related to the civil action brought against Canada by Maher Arar and his family, including the mediation held following the release of the O’Connor Inquiry Final Report, (the “Arar civil claim”) for the (i) Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), (ii) Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), (iii) Department of Justice, (iv) former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), (v) Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA), (vi) Department of National Defence (DND), (vii) Privy Council Office (PCO), (viii) any other department or agency involved; (b) what were the particular costs of the Arar civil claim in each of the following categories, (i) the settlement amount or amounts paid to Mr. Arar and his family to resolve the claim, (ii) the staff costs of the Department of Justice lawyers and paralegals who appeared in, advised on, or assisted in the conduct of the claim on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (iii) all external legal counsel fees and disbursements paid to other lawyers and paralegals who appeared in, advised on, or assisted in the conduct of the claim on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, or who acted as amici or otherwise in relation to that claim, (iv) all expert consultant fees, including, but not limited to, expert witness fees, paid to expert consultants who acted or prepared to act in or assisted in the conduct of the claim on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (v) all fees and disbursement costs paid to the Mediator, (vi) the staff costs of all ministers, employees, or officials who acted or prepared to act as witnesses in the claim, including per diem or other contract compensation paid to former ministers, employees, or officials who appeared as witnesses, (vii) the staff costs of all ministers, employees, or officials who acted or prepared to act in a support role related to the claim, including per diem or other contract compensation paid for third party support services in that regard, (viii) any other rental, transcript, photocopying, and other product or service disbursement costs incurred that were directly related to the claim, (ix) any other costs incurred that were directly related to the claim, broken down by category, (x) where staff costs could not be provided for any of the foregoing for any reason, what is the full-time equivalent hours or days recorded by the lawyers, paralegals, ministers, employees or officials, for billing, inter-departmental charge-back, budget tracking, reporting or other purposes within the government; (c) what were the complete costs related to the civil actions brought against Canada by Ahmad Elmaati, Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nureddin and their families, including the mediation held following the release of the Iacobucci Inquiry Final Report, the Federal Court proceedings in DES-1-10 and DES-1-11, and all interlocutory proceedings and appeals (the “Elmaati/Almalki/Nureddin civil claims”), that have been incurred to date, for (i) CSIS, (ii) RCMP, (iii) Department of Justice, (iv) former DFAIT, (v) CBSA, (vi) DND, (vii) PCO, (viii) any other department or agency involved; and (d) what were the particular costs of the Elmaati/Almalki/Nureddin civil claims in each of the following categories, (i) the staff costs of the Department of Justice lawyers and paralegals who appeared before or assisted in the conduct of any aspect of the Elmaati/Almalki/Nureddin civil claims on behalf of Canada, or any of its Ministers, employees, or officials, (ii) all external legal counsel fees and disbursements paid to the amici appointed by the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal in relation to DES-1-10, DES-1-11, and any appeals arising therefrom, (iii) all external legal counsel fees and disbursements paid to other lawyers who appeared, advised or assisted in the conduct of any aspect of the Elmaati/Almalki/Nureddin civil claims on behalf of Canada, or any of its Ministers, employees, or officials, in relation to those claims, (iv) all expert consultant fees, including but not limited to expert witness, paid to expert consultants who acted or prepared to act in or assisted in the conduct of the Elmaati/Almalki/Nureddin civil claims on behalf of Canada, or any of its Ministers, employees, or officials, (v) the staff costs of all Ministers, employees, or officials who acted or prepared to act as witnesses in the Elmaati/Almalki/Nureddin civil claims, including per diem or other contract compensation paid to former Ministers, employees, or officials who have acted or have prepared to act as witnesses, (vi) the staff costs of all Ministers, employees, or officials who acted or prepared to act in a support role related to the Elmaati/Almalki/Nureddin civil claims, including per diem or other contract compensation paid for third party support services in that regard, (vii) all fees and disbursement costs paid to the mediator in respect of the aborted mediation proceedings held approximately between April and December 2009, (viii) all amounts paid to date in costs awarded by the courts to the plaintiffs in the Elmaati/Almalki/Nureddin civil claims, (ix) any other rental, transcript, photocopying, and other product or service disbursement costs incurred that were directly related to the Elmaati/Almalki/Nureddin civil claims, including the costs of the mediator, (x) any other costs incurred that were related directly related to the Elmaati/Almalki/Nureddin civil claims, broken down by category, (xi) where staff costs could not be provided for any of the foregoing for any reason, what is the full-time equivalent hours or days recorded by the lawyers, paralegals, ministers, employees or officials, for billing, inter-departmental charge-back, budget tracking, reporting or other purposes within the government?

Q-7602 — October 21, 2014 — Mr. Scott (Toronto—Danforth) — With regard to the transfer, the detention and the torture of Canadian citizens Maher Arar, Ahmad Elmaati, Abdullah Almalki, and Muayyed Nureddin in Syria and Egypt: (a) what were the complete costs incurred by the government related to the proceedings of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Public Safety and National Security, leading to its June 2009 Report entitled Review of the Findings and Recommendations Arising from the Iacobucci and O’Connor Inquiries (the “Standing Committee Proceedings”) for the (i) Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), (ii) Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), (iii) Department of Justice, (iv) former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (former DFAIT), (v) Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA), (vi) Department of National Defence, (vii) Privy Council Office (PCO), (viii) any other department or agency involved; (b) what were the particular costs of the Standing Committee Proceedings in each of the following categories, (i) any intervenor or other funding provided by Canada to participants before the Standing Committee Proceedings, (ii) the staff costs of the Department of Justice lawyers and paralegals who appeared or prepared to appear before or assisted in the conduct of the Standing Committee Proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (iii) all external legal counsel fees and disbursements paid to other lawyers who appeared before, advised on, or assisted in the conduct of the Standing Committee Proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, or who acted as amici or otherwise in relation to those proceedings, (iv) all expert consultant fees, including but not limited to expert witness fees, paid to expert consultants who appeared or prepared to appear before or assisted in the conduct of the Standing Committee Proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (v) the staff costs of all ministers, employees, or officials of Canada who appeared or prepared to appear as witnesses before the Standing Committee Proceedings, including per diem or other contract compensation paid to former ministers, employees, or officials who appeared as witnesses, (vi) the staff costs of all ministers, employees, or officials of Canada who acted in a support role related to the Standing Committee Proceedings, including per diem or other contract compensation paid for third party support services in that regard, (vii) any other rental, transcript, photocopying, and other product or service disbursement costs incurred that were directly related to the Standing Committee Proceedings, (viii) any other costs incurred that were related directly related to the Standing Committee Proceedings, and with respect to any such costs, what is the breakdown amount incurred by category, (ix) where staff costs could not be provided for any of the foregoing for any reason, what are the full-time equivalent hours or days recorded by the lawyers, paralegals, ministers, employees or officials, for billing, inter-departmental charge-back, budget tracking, reporting or other purposes within the government; (c) what were the complete costs related to the proceedings of the United Nations Committee Against Torture, 48th Session, leading to its report entitled Concluding Observations of the Committee Against Torture on the sixth periodic report of Canada filed under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and any response by Canada thereto (the “UN-CAT Proceedings”), incurred to date, for (i) CSIS, (ii) RCMP, (iii) Department of Justice, (iv) former DFAIT and current Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, (v) CBSA, (vi) Department of National Defence, (vii) PCO, (viii) any other department or agency involved; and (d) what were the particular costs of the UN-CAT Proceedings in each of the following categories, (i) the staff costs of the Department of Justice lawyers and paralegals who appeared before or assisted in the conduct of any aspect of the UN-CAT Proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (ii) all external legal counsel fees and disbursements paid to other lawyers who appeared, advised or assisted in the conduct of any aspect of the UN-CAT Proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (iii) all expert consultant fees, including but not limited to expert witness, paid to expert consultants who acted or prepared to act in or assisted in the conduct of the UN-CAT Proceedings on behalf of Canada, or any of its ministers, employees, or officials, (iv) the staff costs of all ministers, employees, or officials who acted or prepared to act as witnesses in the UN-CAT Proceedings, including per diem or other contract compensation paid to former ministers, employees, or officials who have acted or have prepared to act as witnesses, (v) the staff costs of all ministers, employees, or officials who acted or prepared to act in a support role related to the UN-CAT Proceedings, including per diem or other contract compensation paid for third party support services in that regard, (vi) any other rental, transcript, photocopying, and other product or service disbursement costs incurred that were directly related to the UN-CAT Proceedings, (vii) any other costs incurred that were related directly related to the UN-CAT Proceedings, broken down by category, (viii) where staff costs could not be provided for any of the foregoing for any reason, what are the full-time equivalent hours or days recorded by the lawyers, paralegals, ministers, employees or officials, for billing, inter-departmental charge-back, budget tracking, reporting or other purposes within the government?

Q-7612 — October 21, 2014 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency, for each year since 2004 inclusively: (a) how many Reminder Letters has the Charities Directorate issued to charities; (b) how many formal complaints have been received concerning the political activities of charities; (c) how many political-activity audits have been commenced, (i) of those audits, how many have been concluded, (ii) how long did each audit last; and (d) what has been (i) the total expenditure on the political-activity audit program in each fiscal year since the program was established, (ii) the total expenditure on each completed audit?

Q-7622 — October 21, 2014 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to government advertising related to the Canada 150 celebrations: (a) what has been, or what is anticipated to be, the total spending on advertising related to these celebrations, for each fiscal year from 2010-2011 to 2019-2020 inclusive; (b) what are the details of consultations or focus groups with respect to this advertising, providing details as to (i) the dates, (ii) the participants in any such consultations or focus groups; (c) what organizations or firms participated in the design and production of any advertising which has already been broadcast or published, giving (i) the name of the vendor, (ii) the reference number of any related contract, (iii) the date of the contract, (iv) the description of the goods or services provided, (v) the delivery date, (vi) the original contract value, (vii) the final contract value if different from the original value; (d) what is the title, content, and reference or ADV number of each advertisement which has already been produced; (e) what are the details of each advertisement placement to date, giving the title or other identifying detail of each television station, radio station, or print publication in which the advertisement was broadcast or published; (f) what is the total number and percentage share of advertisements which have been (i) produced, (ii) broadcast or published, broken down by official language of Canada, or by non-official language, specifying that language; (g) what has been the total cost of advertisements which have been broadcast or published to date, broken down by language of broadcast or publication; and (h) what is the anticipated cost and number of placements of advertisements which have been authorized to be broadcast or published in the future, broken down by language of broadcast or publication?

Q-7632 — October 21, 2014 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to the formulation of policies concerning firearms regulation: (a) what are the details of the “bureaucratic initiatives” concerning firearms regulation which were referred to by the Prime Minister in public remarks made in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, on October 17, 2014, including (i) when was each such initiative commenced, (ii) in which departments or agencies, and which divisions, offices, or organizations within those departments or agencies, do the bureaucrats who commenced each such initiative work, (iii) what has been the total expenditure associated with each such initiative, (iv) what are the titles and file numbers of any reports, dossiers, or other documents associated with, or generated in relation to, each such initiative?

Q-7642 — October 23, 2014 — Mrs. Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles) — With respect to a bid submitted to the Canada School of Public Service (Bid – ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp., reference number CSPS-RFP-1112-JS-014): (a) what is the full name of the director of the branch where the bid has been issued; (b) what communication has been sent from the Canada School of Public Service to ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. relating to the bid; (c) on what date was the bid awarded to Hassiba Kherif; (d) what communication method has been used to inform ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. of the contract reward; (e) on what date was the bid cancelled; (f) for what reason was the bid cancelled; (g) what communication method was used to inform ADRM Consulting Technology Group Corp. of the contract cancellation; (h) if the cancellation of the bid was communicated through a phone call, has the telephone conversation been documented; (i) what are the details of other bids that have been cancelled between January 2012 and December 2012 at the Canada School of Public Service; and (j) for each cancelled bid referred in (i), what was the communication method used to inform the supplier of the cancellation?

Q-7652 — October 23, 2014 — Mr. Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup) — With regard to the oil port project in Cacouna and the activities associated with marine traffic for the years 2013 and 2014: what statistical data has been compiled for all port activities and marine traffic, including, but not limited to, (i) the total volume that goes through Cacouna each year, (ii) the number of ships at the Cacouna port each year, (iii) the types of cargo that go through Cacouna, that is, bulk products, finished goods, etc.?

Q-7662 — October 28, 2014 — Mr. Bevington (Northwest Territories) — With respect to the Northern Greenhouse Initiative (NGI), and to the Call for Expressions of Interest to access NGI funding that closed on September 30, 2014: (a) how many applications were received; (b) who applied; and (c) when will the successful applicants be announced?

Q-7672 — October 28, 2014 — Ms. Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles) — With regard to proactive enrolment for Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits: (a) how many persons aged 65 and over who did not receive benefits without applying for them in 2012 are now receiving them automatically, broken down by (i) region, (ii) province; and (b) what percentage of those persons who had to apply to receive their benefits in 2012 now receive them automatically, broken down by (i) region, (ii) province?

Q-7682 — October 28, 2014 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to travel paid for by government departments and agencies for Members of Parliament and Senators other than the minister, Minister of State, or Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the department: since 2010-2011 inclusively, (a) what was the total cost for each trip; (b) what was the cost for each trip, broken down by (i) transportation, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) gifts; (c) what was the reason for each trip; (d) what was the name of the Member of Parliament or Senator on each trip; (e) what was the itinerary for each trip; (f) was the Member accompanied by staff and, if so, what was the cost for the staff member or members, broken down by (i) transportation, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) gifts; and (g) was a press release issued regarding the trip and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

Q-7692 — October 28, 2014 — Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) — With regard to the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program announced on February 21, 2012: (a) how much funding has been disbursed; (b) which organizations have received funding; and (c) for each funding award, (i) how many participants have there been, (ii) how many participants are expected to take part over the course of the program, (iii) where is the program located, (iv) what is the estimated at-risk population in each city, town, or municipality concerned, (v) how much funding did the project receive?

Q-7702 — October 28, 2014 — Mr. Dubourg (Bourassa) — With regard to the Treasury Board Secretariat: (a) does the Directive on Open Government, dated October 9, 2014, apply to tabular material prepared by departments, agencies, or crown corporations in response to written questions placed on the Order Paper by Members of the House of Commons or Senators; (b) if the response to (a) is negative, (i) why does the Directive not apply, (ii) who made this determination, (iii) when was this determination made; and (c) what are the titles and file numbers of any file, briefing note, dossier, or any other document, created or held by either the Treasury Board Secretariat or the Privy Council Office, relating to the application of the Directive on Open Government to government responses to written questions placed on the Order Paper by Members of the House of Commons or Senators?

Q-7712 — October 28, 2014 — Mr. Dubourg (Bourassa) — With regard to the rental or charter of private aircraft for the use of ministers and parliamentary secretaries since January 1, 2010: (a) what was the cost for each rental or charter; (b) what was the passenger manifest for each flight; (c) what was the purpose of the trip; (d) what was the itinerary for each trip; and (e) was a press release issued regarding the trip and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

Q-7722 — October 28, 2014 — Mr. Dubourg (Bourassa) — With regard to Passport Canada: what was the total number of passport applications received in each year since 2006 inclusive, broken down by (i) in-person location, (ii) Service Canada receiving agent location, (iii) Canada Post receiving agent, and (iv) mail?

Q-7732 — October 29, 2014 — Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria) — With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) animal transportation inspection system, and review of the animal transport regulations under Part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations: (a) what corrective actions are being taken in light of the apparent violations of the Health of Animals Regulations and CFIA inspectors’ apparent failure to respond to unacceptable treatment of animals, as recently suggested by images filmed at the Western Hog Exchange in Red Deer, Alberta (http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/hidden-camera-investigation-reveals-abuse-in-canadian-pork-transportation-system-1.2049011); (b) what is the status of draft amendments or proposals to the animal transport regulations under the Health of Animals Regulations, Part XII, and what is the Agency’s timeframe for publishing those proposed changes in Part I of the Canada Gazette; and (c) what measures will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food advise CFIA to take to ensure that Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) are dissuasive and specifically, is the Minister planning to significantly increase AMPs in order to ensure that they are dissuasive?

Q-7742 — October 30, 2014 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the statutes, regulations, policies and practices governing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans related to the issuing and administration of commercial fishing licences and fisheries resource allocation decisions: (a) what is the definition of (i) a commercial fishing licence, (ii) a commercial fishing permit; (b) what are the differences between a commercial fishing licence and a commercial fishing permit in terms of (i) the rights and responsibilities of the harvester holding either a licence or a permit respectively, (ii) the rights and responsibilities of the Minister in terms of resource allocation policy; (c) what is the definition of the “Last-in – First-out” (LIFO) policy; (d) how often has the LIFO policy been acted upon in determining allocations of annual quotas to either commercial fisheries licences or to permit holders that have experienced any year-over-year decline in the total allowable catch, broken down by (i) year, (ii) each such regulated harvesting category within any of the fisheries management areas of each fisheries stock area within the Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gulf, the Maritime and the Quebec regions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, further broken down in turn by (iii) species fished, (iv) individual fisheries management area within the species stock area within the past ten years, including the total quota levels for each such species and for each such fisheries management area within each stock area in each year; and (e) in each of the occurrences reported in answering (d), for each of the past ten years described, what was the total number of fish licence holders or permit holders who were directly affected by a reduction in quota on a year-over-year basis and were subject to the application and enactment of the LIFO policy, broken down by (i) species, (ii) individual fisheries management area within each fisheries stock area?

Q-7752 — October 30, 2014 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to government funding of internet services: broken down by department and individual project, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006, up to and including the current year, (a) what is the total amount spent on the deployment of wired broadband internet services and infrastructure; (b) what is the total amount spent on the deployment of wireless broadband services and infrastructure?

Q-7762 — October 30, 2014 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to Industry Canada's licensing of radio spectrum: in each band of radio spectrum, broken down by fiscal year since 2005-2006, up to and including the current fiscal year, (i) how many licences have been revoked for failure to meet the conditions of the licence, (ii) from which licensees?

Q-7772 — October 31, 2014 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With respect to the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Counsellor in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development: (a) is the Department currently conducting interviews to fill the role of CSR Counsellor within the office and, if so, (i) how many candidates have been interviewed by the Department, (ii) by what date does the Department expect to fill the role of CSR Counsellor; (b) how many staff are currently employed by the Department to administer the Office of the CSR Counsellor; and (c) including the cost of staff, office space rental, stationery and similar materials, hospitality, and any other expenses not mentioned above, what was the total cost of maintaining the Office of the CSR Counsellor during the period from October 2013 to October 2014?

Q-7782 — October 31, 2014 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With regard to the application of the Access to Information Act: (a) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all directives, orders, memoranda, reports, dossiers, or other documents that deal with the security concerns associated with the release of documents pursuant to Access to Information requests in digital formats or on digital media; and (b) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all directives, orders, memoranda, reports, dossiers, or other documents in which the Privy Council Office has set down or promulgated its policies concerning the provision or non-provision of documents released pursuant to Access to Information requests in digital formats or on digital media?

Q-7792 — November 3, 2014 — Ms. Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry) — With regard to the ship Kathryn Spirit moored in Beauharnois, Quebec: (a) has Environment Canada or Transport Canada received a towing plan or an environmental certificate application from the ship’s owner and, if so, when was this plan received; (b) according to government information, is Reciclajes Ecologicos Maritimos the ship’s owner; (c) if the answer to (b) is no, who owns the ship, according to government information; (d) has the government conducted an analysis as to whether federal legislation allows the ship to be dismantled at its mooring location and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (e) has the government conducted an analysis of the risk of pollution from dismantling the ship and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (f) according to government information, does the ship contain toxic materials and, if so, what are they; (g) is there a port equipped to dismantle such a ship in Canada and, if so, where is it; (h) has the government analyzed whether federal legislation allows it to (i) seize the ship, (ii) tow the ship to a safe location and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (i) does the government intend to (i) seize the ship, (ii) tow the ship to a safe location; and (j) has the government conducted an analysis on dismantling the ship in the Port of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield or in another port elsewhere in the country and, if so, has it estimated the cost of such an operation?

Q-7802 — November 3, 2014 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to government expenditures on sporting event tickets: since January 1, 2013, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) ticket cost, (iv) identity of persons using the tickets, (v) nature of the sporting event, for all sporting event tickets purchased by any department, agency or crown corporation, or any person acting on behalf of a department, agency, or crown corporation, whether the event was held in Canada or outside Canada?

Q-7812 — November 3, 2014 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to the Canadian Space Agency: (a) why was the photograph of Canadarm 2, previously posted to the Agency's Tumblr accounts at “http://canadian-space-agency.tumblr.com/post/76666430256/csa-astronaut-jeremy-hansen-canadarm2-looks” and “http://agence-spatiale-canadienne.tumblr.com/post/76666430181/jeremy-hansen-asronaute-de-lasc-canadarm2”, modified to add the Canada wordmark; (b) who made these modifications to the photograph; (c) who requested or directed that the modifications be made; (d) when was that request or direction issued; (e) why was the Tumblr posting removed; (f) who removed the Tumblr posting; (g) who requested or directed that the Tumblr posting be removed; and (h) why was that request or direction issued?

Q-7822 — November 3, 2014 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to government advertising since September 1, 2012: (a) how much has been spent on billboards, advertising and other information campaigns, broken down by (i) date released, (ii) cost, (iii) topic, (iv) whether any analysis of the effectiveness of the advertising campaign was carried out and, if so, the details of that analysis, (v) medium, including publication or media outlet and type of media used, (vi) purpose, (vii) duration of campaign (including those that are ongoing), (viii) targeted audience, (ix) estimated audience; and (b) what are the details of all records of related correspondence regarding the aforementioned billboards, advertising and other information campaigns broken down by (i) relevant file numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?

Q-7832 — November 4, 2014 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With regard to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk and moose: (a) since 2006, what government funding has been allocated or provided to research this disease, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) year; (b) what documents have been produced by government departments or agencies with regard to existing or future economic, health or environmental impacts of CWD including, for each document, the (i) date, (ii) authoring department or agency; (c) what documents have been produced by government departments or agencies regarding CWD generally including, for each document, the (i) date, (ii) authoring department or agency; (d) for each year since 2006, what measures have been taken by the government to mitigate the spread of CWD in Canada, including (i) the department or agency responsible for each measure, (ii) the date each measure was initiated, (iii) the duration of each measure, (iv) the objective of each measure, (v) whether those objectives were met; (e) what strategies and programs are currently in place or are being developed to deal with the potential spread of CWD to animals not currently susceptible to the disease, and to humans; (f) since 2006, what meetings or consultations have been conducted with provincial or territorial governments regarding CWD and what documents or decisions were produced from those meetings or consultations, including (i) the initiating and responsible federal department or agency, (ii) the date of the document that was produced or of the decision that was taken; (g) since 2006, what consultations, meetings or outreach has any federal department or agency had with any First Nations, Inuit or Metis government, organization or representative, including the (i) date of the interaction, (ii) names of participants, (iii) topics discussed, (iv) outcomes, (v) documents produced as a result of the interaction; (h) since 2006, what measures has the government put in place to monitor the spread of CWD, including (i) the department or agency initiating each measure, (ii) the date each measure was initiated, (iii) the duration of each measure; and (i) what measures are currently being considered by government departments or agencies as a result of, or in relation to, CWD?

Q-7842 — November 4, 2014 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act: how much have payments increased on average for (i) the 2,717 veterans entitled to increased earnings loss benefits, (ii) the 590 veterans entitled to increased Permanent Incapacity Allowances, (iii) the 202 veterans entitled to Exceptional Incapacity Allowances?

Q-7852 — November 4, 2014 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With regard to the War Veterans Allowance (WVA) program: (a) how many Allied veterans have applied for the program since it was expanded in June 2009; (b) what are the criteria that Allied veterans must meet to be eligible for the WVA; (c) specifically, are Allied veterans required to be Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or living in Canada to be eligible; (d) how many applicants have been approved; (e) how many family members of Allied veterans have applied for the program since it was expanded in June 2009; (f) how many family members of Allied veterans have been approved to receive the benefit; (g) what is the total value of benefits approved for Allied veterans and their families since the WVA was expanded in June 2009; and (h) after submitting an application, what is the average wait-time for Allied veterans or their families to receive a benefit?

Q-7862 — November 4, 2014 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to the benefit provided by the government for veterans' funeral and burial expenses: (a) what is the maximum amount available through the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program for funeral services; (b) how does the amount in (a) compare to the allowable maximum established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces; (c) in order to qualify for the maximum amount available through the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program, at what must a veteran's estate be valued; (d) how does the amount in (c) compare to the means test established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces; (e) how many requests for assistance with burial costs were made in each of the fiscal years from 2006 to 2013; (f) how many of the requests in (e) were approved; (g) for each request in (e), broken down by fiscal year, what were the reasons for rejecting the request; and (h) what is the total number of requests that were rejected for each particular reason mentioned in (g)?

Q-7872 — November 4, 2014 — Ms. Jones (Labrador) — With regard to the Income Tax Act: during each of the last five taxation years, (a) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been reviewed, broken down by income tax filers who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (iii) in a location other than a Northern or Intermediate Zone; (b) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been audited, broken down by income tax filers who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (iii) in a location other than a Northern or Intermediate Zone; (c) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been (i) reviewed, (ii) audited, broken down by income tax filers who have claimed any northern residents deduction and those who have not claimed any northern residents deduction; (d) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, after having been (i) reviewed, (ii) audited, have had their claim for the northern residents deduction rejected, broken down by those income tax filers who have claimed the northern residents deduction in a Prescribed Northern Zone and those who have claimed the northern residents deduction in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone; (e) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, in respect of the northern residents deduction, have been asked to document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city, broken down by those who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction; (f) of the tax filers enumerated in (e), what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, in respect of the northern residents deduction, informed the Canada Revenue Agency that they could not document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city; and (g) of the tax filers enumerated in (e), what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory whose claim of the northern residents deduction has been rejected because they could not document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city?

Q-7882 — November 4, 2014 — Ms. Jones (Labrador) — With regard to the administration of the Income Tax Act: (a) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the cost-effectiveness of reviewing or auditing income tax filers who claim the northern residents deduction; (b) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (a); (c) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the administrative burden faced by income tax filers who claim the northern residents deduction; (d) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (c); (e) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the administrative burden faced by the Canada Revenue Agency in administering the northern residents deduction; and (f) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (e)?

Q-7892 — November 4, 2014 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — With regard to Public Private Partnerships involving Infrastructure Canada or PPP Canada: since January 1, 2006, for each such project, what are (a) the details of the project; (b) the time taken to design the bidding process; (c) the length of the bidding process from the initial expression of interest to the close; and (d) the cost to proponents of preparing a bid?

Q-7902 — November 5, 2014 — Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River) — With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs: how many clients were served each year from 2010 to 2014 inclusively at each Veterans Affairs office location, including the nine offices that have recently closed?

Q-7912 — November 5, 2014 — Mr. Barlow (Macleod) — With regard to the operations of the RCMP in and around the Town of High River, Alberta, between June 20, 2013, and July 12, 2013 (“the High River operations”): (a) what are the definitions of “illegally stored firearms”, “carelessly stored firearms” and “unsafe storage” as accepted and enforced by the RCMP, (i) are there any circumstances under which these definitions are expanded or altered in such a way that it impacts the extent to which the RCMP can enforce them, (ii) if (i) is answered affirmatively, did any of these circumstances occur in the context of the High River operations, and in what way were these definitions thus altered; (b) what statutes and regulations, as enforced by the RCMP, regulate the storage of legally owned firearms, of all classifications, (i) are there any circumstances under which these statutes and or regulations are expanded or altered in such a way that it impacts the extent to which the RCMP can enforce them, (ii) if (i) is answered affirmatively, did any of these circumstances occur in the context of the High River operations, and in what way were the statutes and regulations in question thus altered; (c) what specific sections of RCMP training, procedural manuals, or other documentation governed the procedures that led to the seizure of legally stored firearms located by RCMP in residences during the High River operations; (d) what prior examples of large scale door-to-door searches by the RCMP that included the seizure of firearms from multiple residences informed the procedure for the seizure of legally stored firearms that occurred in the context of the High River operations; (e) what information was recorded by the RCMP regarding the location in each residence of the firearms that were seized or secured by the RCMP in the course of the door-to-door searches of residences during the High River operations, (i) where is this information being kept, (ii) who has access to it, (iii) what was the purpose of recording this information; (f) in how many instances were legally stored firearms located in residences by RCMP in the context of the High River operations and not seized or secured by the RCMP; (g) was any information recorded regarding legally stored firearms in residences which were not seized or secured by the RCMP in the context of the High River operations and, if so, (i) what are the details of the information recorded, (ii) who (including name, rank, and detachment) authorized the recording; (h) under what statutory or procedural authority was the RCMP operating when the firearms which were seized or secured by the RCMP during the course of the door-to-door searches of residences in the context of the High River operations were queried in the Canadian Police Information Centre database; (i) how many times has the Canadian Police Information Centre database been accessed by any members of the RCMP regarding (i) any residents of the Town of High River, Alberta, (ii) any firearms-license holders residing in and around the town of High River, Alberta; (j) what was the purpose of querying, in the Canadian Police Information Centre database, the firearms which had been seized or secured by the RCMP in the context of the High River operations, (i) what are the names, ranks, positions, units and detachments of the officer or officers who authorized this procedure, (ii) what other seized items were queried in the Canadian Police Information Centre database, (iii) if no other seized items were checked against the Canadian Police Information Centre database, why not, (iv) in how many instances did this process result in the identification of stolen weapons, (v) in how many instances did this process result in the identification of persons in possession of firearms that they were prohibited from possessing; (k) was the Canadian Police Information Center database accessed by any member or members of the RCMP regarding any residences which were linked with federal firearms-license holders, in and around the Town of High River, Alberta and, if so, (i) what information was accessed, (ii) why was the information accessed, (iii) on what specific dates was the information accessed, (iv) what are the names, ranks, positions, units and detachments of the RCMP officers or officer who authorized this procedure; and (l) was the restricted-firearms registry accessed at any point between June 20, 2013, and July 12, 2013, by any members of the RCMP regarding any residents of the Town of High River, Alberta, or regarding any restricted or prohibited firearms registered to persons residing in and around the Town of High River, Alberta and, if so, (i) what information from the restricted-firearms registry was sought by the RCMP, (ii) what was the purpose of accessing the restricted firearms registry at this time, (iii) what was the number of restricted or prohibited firearms identified in the restricted-firearms registry as being registered in and around the Town of High River, Alberta, (iv) how many such firearms were eventually seized by the RCMP, (v) what are the names, ranks, positions, units and detachments of the officers or officer who authorized this procedure?

Q-7922 — November 5, 2014 — Mr. Barlow (Macleod) — With regard to the operations of the Canadian Armed Forces in and around the Town of High River, Alberta between June 20, 2013, and July 12, 2013: (a) what were the operational directives issued to the Canadian Armed Forces concerning their operations in conjunction with the RCMP, specifically with respect to (i) the door-to-door searches of residences, (ii) door-to-door searches of residences by forced entry, (iii) searches for any firearms in residences, (iv) collection of any firearms found while searching residences, (v) transportation of any firearms found while searching residences, (vi) recording of any information regarding firearms found while searching residences, (vii) recording of any information regarding residences in which firearms were located; (b) what operations were conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces in conjunction with the RCMP specifically with respect to (i) the door-to-door searches of residences, (ii) door-to-door searches of residences by forced entry, (iii) searches for any firearms in residences, (iv) collection of any firearms found while searching residences, (v) transportation of any firearms found while searching residences, (vi) recording of any information regarding firearms found while searching residences, (vii) recording of any information regarding residences in which firearms were located; (c) what requests were issued by the RCMP to the Canadian Armed Forces specifically with respect to (i) the door-to-door searches of residences, (ii) door-to-door searches of residences by forced entry, (iii) searches for any firearms in residences, (iv) collection of any firearms found while searching residences, (v) transportation of any firearms found while searching residences, (vi) recording of any information regarding firearms found while searching residences, (vii) recording of any information regarding residences in which firearms were located; (d) were any requests by the RCMP refused by the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, (i) what was the content of each request by the RCMP that was refused by the Canadian Armed Forces, (ii) on what date was each request made, (iii) what were the reasons for the refusal of each request; (e) what requests were issued by any government entities, including, but not limited to municipal, provincial and federal governments, to the Canadian Armed Forces specifically with respect to (i) the door-to-door searches of residences, (ii) door-to-door searches of residences by forced entry, (iii) searches for any firearms in residences, (iv) collection of any firearms found while searching residences, (v) transportation of any firearms found while searching residences, (vi) recording of any information regarding firearms found while searching residences, (vii) recording of any information regarding residences in which firearms were located; and (f) was any request by any government entity refused by the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, (i) what was the content of each request by any government entity that was refused by the Canadian Armed Forces, (ii) on what date was each request made, (iii) what were the reasons for the refusal of each request?

Q-7932 — November 6, 2014 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — With regard to government spending in the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing: what was the total amount spent, from fiscal year 2010-2011 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the funds were received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program through which the funding was allocated, (iv) the department responsible, (v) the designated recipient?

Q-7942 — November 13, 2014 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With respect to licenses and permits issued by government departments, related to any maritime activity for potential use anywhere within, or in the waters of, the Atlantic provinces: (a) for each license or permit issued since 2009, (i) on what date was each license or permit issued, (ii) who were the owners or operators, (iii) under what conditions concerning the use, retention, or renewal of the license or permit, was it issued; (b) for each vessel whose license was suspended, rejected, or for which a renewal was denied, (i) on what date was the license suspended, rejected, or the renewal denied, (ii) for what reasons, (iii) by whose authority; (c) what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and all entities, departments, companies, contractors, or individuals, relating to the suspension, rejection or denial of license renewal, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) date, (iv) purpose, (v) origin, (vi) intended destination, (vii) other officials copied or involved; (d) what are the specific rules for the retention or renewal of any such license or permits; (e) what are all rules, files, and correspondence related to observer and dockside monitoring of these license-holders and users, broken down by (i) all relevant file numbers, (ii) entities, companies, contractors, or individuals, (iii) minister or department, (iv) correspondence or file type, (v) date, (vi) purpose, (vii) origin, (viii) intended destination, (ix) other officials copied or involved, (x) military base, asset, or facility, (xi) type of activity or contract; (f) what differences exist in the conditions for licenses or permits among different regions, zones, or provinces; and (g) what are the rules governing the keeping, as opposed to the releasing, of fish caught on boats used for recreational or touristic purposes, broken down by (i) province, (ii) number of applicable licensees or permits?

Q-7952 — November 13, 2014 — Mr. Bevington (Northwest Territories) — With respect to the imprisonment in China of Canadian citizen Huseyin Celil; (a) has the government discussed the topic of his case with Chinese government officials; (b) if discussions have taken place, how were they conducted; (c) what questions did the government ask regarding his status and well-being; (d) what responses did the government receive from the Chinese government; (e) what were the government's follow-up actions based on these responses; (f) has the Canadian Consular services ever visited him in prison (either directly, or indirectly through a third party like Red Crescent or Red Cross); and (g) if the Canadian Consular Services has not visited him in prison, why not?

Q-7962 — November 13, 2014 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces Task Force Libeccio in Operation Mobile: what were the (a) full and incremental costs from March 2011 to October 2011, broken down by month; (b) full and incremental costs for the (i) CF-18, (ii) CC-150, (iii) CC-130, (iv) CC-177, (v) CP-140; (c) total flying hours for the (i) CF-18, (ii) CC-150, (iii) CC-130, (iv) CC-177, (v) CP-140; (d) full and incremental costs of all base support arrangements (e.g. accommodations, meals, amenities, infrastructure, utilities) including any in-kind support received; (e) full and incremental costs of all deployment, supply, and re-deployment flights, including Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and charter aircraft; (f) ordnance ammunition used and its full and incremental costs; (g) full and incremental costs related to fuel delivered by RCAF tankers; (h) full and incremental costs of repair and overhaul; (i) full and incremental costs of any special pay or allowances for deployed personnel; (j) full and incremental costs associated with Home Leave Travel Assistance; (k) full and incremental costs associated with Class C Reserves deployed on operations; and (l) full and incremental costs associated with Class B Reserves employed as backfill in Canada?

Q-7972 — November 13, 2014 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces Operation IMPACT: what are the estimated (for the entire six-month operation) and actual (to-date) (a) full and incremental costs for the mission, broken down by month; (b) full and incremental costs for the (i) CC-130J, (ii) CC-177, (iii) CF-188, (iv) CP-140, (v) CC-150T; (c) total flying hours for the (i) CC-130J, (ii) CC-177, (iii) CF-188, (iv) CP-140, (v) CC-150T; (d) full and incremental costs of all base support arrangements (e.g. accommodations, meals, amenities, infrastructure, utilities) including any in-kind support received; (e) full and incremental costs of all deployment, supply, and re-deployment flights, including Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and charter aircraft; (f) ordnance ammunition (i) used, (ii) to be used, and its full and incremental costs; (g) full and incremental costs related to fuel delivered by RCAF tankers; (h) full and incremental costs of repair and overhaul; (i) full and incremental costs of any special pay or allowances for deployed personnel; (j) full and incremental costs associated with Home Leave Travel Assistance; (k) full and incremental costs associated with Class C Reserves deployed on operations; and (l) full and incremental costs associated with Class B Reserves employed as backfill in Canada?

Q-7982 — November 13, 2014 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) for the data collected in the Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS), for all the Department’s various program components, what were the processing times for grant and contribution applications between the time the program acknowledged receipt of the application and the time the Department made a funding decision, broken down by program component and quarter, for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively; and (b) for the Department’s executive committee responsible for reviewing the data on processing times collected in the GCIMS, (i) who are the members of the executive committee, (ii) how often does it meet, (iii) what is its operating budget, (iv) what were its recommendations to the Minister’s office, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (v) what were its recommendations to the deputy ministers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (vi) what were its recommendations to the assistant deputy ministers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (vii) what were its recommendations to directors general, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (viii) what were its recommendations to program managers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively?

Q-7992 — November 17, 2014 — Ms. Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) — With regard to the government’s Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Summit (the Summit) held in Toronto, May 28-30, 2014: (a) who within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development was responsible for the organization of the Summit; (b) what was the initial budget of the event, (i) did the Summit go over budget, (ii) if so, what were the cost overruns, (iii) were there unforeseen expenses; (c) what was the total cost of the Summit; (d) what was the total cost for the venue rental (Fairmont Royal York); (e) how many bedrooms in the Fairmont Royal York were paid for by the government and at what cost; (f) how many names were on the final guest list and what were the names; (g) how many government officials and employees attended the Summit and what are their names; (h) how many guests who are not employees of the government had their stay at the Fairmont Royal York paid for by the government and what are their names; (i) did the government pay for the travel expenses of international visitors; (j) how was the Fairmont Royal York chosen as a venue for the Summit, (i) on what date was the hotel first contacted with regard to the Summit, (ii) on what date was the contract with the hotel signed, (iii) did the Summit organizers contact venues other than the Fairmont Royal York and, if so, how many; (k) what was the total cost for security; (l) what was the total cost of meals and hospitality; and (m) was the Summit paid for by funds dedicated to the Muskoka Initiative?

Q-8002 — November 17, 2014 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With respect to fines and penalties issued or imposed for violations of the Do Not Call List since January 1, 2010: (a) what is the total number and dollar value of Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) that have been imposed; (b) what is the total number and dollar value of AMPs that have been paid to date; (c) what is the total number of negotiated settlements that have been reached to date; (d) what is the total number and dollar value of negotiated settlements that have been paid to date; (e) what is the number of companies that have refused to either pay an AMP or reach a negotiated settlement; (f) for Pecon Software Ltd., (i) did the company seek a review of the fine, (ii) what was the total dollar value of the fine after a review, if any, was completed, (iii) did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine, (iv) was a negotiated settlement reached, (v) if a negotiated settlement was reached, what was its total value (vi) what is the total dollar value of the fine, if any, that has been paid to date, (vii) has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement; and (g) for Avaneesh Software, (i) what was the finding of the Violation and Review Panel, (ii) what was the total dollar value of the fine after the review, if any, (iii) did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine, (iv) was a negotiated settlement reached, (v) what was the total value of the negotiated settlement, if any, (vi) what is the total dollar value of the fine, if any, that has been paid to date, (vii) has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement?

Q-8012 — November 17, 2014 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to information in the government's possession concerning First Nation students on-reserve who participated in provincial standardized testing for numeracy and literacy: (a) what was the methodology used to determine the results; (b) what were the ages of the individuals tested; and (c) what were the numeracy and literacy results, broken down by reserve?

Q-8022 — November 18, 2014 — Mr. Harris (St. John's East) — With regard to Canada’s combat mission in Iraq, known as Operation IMPACT: (a) what are the total estimated flying hours for the six-month mission, broken down by month, for each of the following, (i) CF-188 Hornets, (ii) CC-177 Globemaster, (iii) CC-130J Hercules, (iv) CP-140 Aurora, (v) CC-150T Polaris; (b) what are the total estimated costs per hour associated with the flying hours for each of these previously mentioned aircraft; and (c) what is the amount of any additional costs related to the deployment and sustainment of the air mission to Iraq, including the total estimated costs of the establishment of personnel in Kuwait, and all associated costs for the six-month period?

Q-8032 — November 18, 2014 — Mr. Harris (St. John's East) — With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces’ advise and assist mission to Iraq announced on September 5, 2014: (a) what are the estimated total and incremental costs of the mission; (b) are there other personnel associated with this mission and, if so, how many; and (c) is this mission scheduled to end six months from October 7, 2014, the date the motion to initiate it was adopted by the House of Commons?

Q-8042 — November 18, 2014 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Mount Polley mine spill: (a) has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) or Environment Canada filed charges regarding the spill, (i) if so, what are the details of the charges, (ii) if not, why not; (b) what role are DFO and Environment Canada playing in the ongoing investigation being led by British Columbia conservation officers; (c) are DFO and Environment Canada reviewing the rehabilitation plan developed by Imperial Metals Corporation, (i) if so, what are the findings of any such review, (ii) if not, why not; (d) has the government obtained the approval of the Secwepemc people for the investigation process or the review of the rehabilitation plan; (e) has the government studied the impact of the waste that remains in the Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake Watershed; (f) during and following the rehabilitation process, how will DFO and Environment Canada ensure that there are no ongoing violations of the Fisheries Act; (g) how is the government monitoring and enforcing compliance with best practice standards by Imperial Metals Corporation at its other mine sites; (h) how will the government ensure that there are additional layers of control to prevent loopholes in regulatory oversight and enforcement by the province; (i) will the government be examining any proposals concerning (i) repairs to the tailings storage facility, (ii) the resumption of operations at the mine; (j) how will the government ensure that the interests of the affected First Nations are addressed prior to any resumption of operation; (k) what steps will the government take to ensure that First Nation rights are addressed; and (l) what are the internal tracking numbers of all documents, communications or briefing notes regarding the Mount Polley spill for senior departmental officials at the Regional Director General level and above, at both DFO and Environment Canada?

Q-8052 — November 18, 2014 — Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria) — With regard to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation (ECBC): for each year from 2005 to 2014 inclusively, (a) how much did the ECBC spend on infrastructure; and (b) what were all the projects of the ECBC, including but not limited to details such as the project’s name, purpose, and cost?

Q-8062 — November 18, 2014 — Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria) — With regard to federal government employees in Nova Scotia: for each year from 2005 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by department, how many government employees worked in (i) Cape Breton Regional Municipality, (ii) Victoria County, (iii) Inverness County, (iv) Richmond County?

Q-8072 — November 18, 2014 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario), how much government funding has been approved and distributed to each of the 37 census divisions by year since 2009?

Q-8082 — November 18, 2014 — Mrs. Groguhé (Saint-Lambert) — With respect to the Canada Job Grant: (a) how much is each province and territory receiving in federal transfers under the Canada Job Fund for the current fiscal year, and for each subsequent fiscal year until the Fund is fully phased-in; (b) how much did each province and territory receive in federal transfers under the Labour Market Agreements in 2013-2014; (c) how much is, or is projected to be, the federal portion of the Canada Job Grant, year-to-date and for each of the coming fiscal years until the program is fully phased-in; (d) is the federal contribution to the Canada Job Grant paid out of the 40 % funds earmarked for employer-driven training under the Canada Job Fund; (e) if the federal portion of the Canada Job Grant is not paid out of the Canada Job Fund, from which program envelope is the contribution drawn; (f) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has the government actually spent on the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (g) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has each province and territory contributed to the Canada Job Grant from the Canada Job Fund; (h) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has been the employer contribution to the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (i) how much is the employer contribution projected to be for the Canada Job Grant for each of the coming fiscal years, until the program is fully phased-in; (j) how many businesses are projected to be eligible to provide “in-kind contribution” as their share of the Canada Job Grant when the program is fully-phased in; (k) what are eligible contributions “in-kind” for an employer’s participation in the Canada Job Grant; (l) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how many Canadians have been trained with the help of the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (m) how many Canadians will be trained with help of the Canada Job Grant for each of the fiscal years until it is fully phased-in; and (n) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, for which occupations have Canadians been trained with the help of the Canada Job Grant (using the National Occupational Classification system)?

Q-8092 — November 20, 2014 — Ms. Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan) — With regard to transactions respecting Leclerc penitentiary in Laval between the federal government and the Government of Quebec: (a) what was the total cost of the penitentiary transaction; (b) for how much was the kitchen equipment sold; (c) for how much was the laundry equipment sold; and (d) was the heating equipment included in the transaction, and if so, what are the details of the service contract for sharing the heating equipment with the rest of the complex, which includes other federal penitentiaries?

Q-8102 — November 20, 2014 — Mr. Ravignat (Pontiac) — With regard to Shared Services Canada: (a) what was the intention underlying the privatization of email services; and (b) what are the consequences of this privatization with respect to (i) public service jobs, (ii) the possible loss of these jobs, (iii) the reliability of email services for shared services employees, (iv) the confidentiality and security of these email services, (v) the savings or losses from these changes to email services?

Q-8112 — November 21, 2014 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to government records: what information, asset management systems, correspondence tracking systems, telecommunications logs, vehicle logs, and all other forms of records are (a) kept, broken down by (i) department, (ii) record type, (iii) duration of preservation, (iv) frequency of update, (v) date of oldest currently preserved record, (vi) method of disposal, (vii) file numbering or similar record access system, (viii) list of employees (by title), contractors or other individuals with access to the records, (ix) method of keeping track of access requests to the records; and (b) not kept, including the details pertaining to what was not kept and why?

Q-8122 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the changes announced in October 2014 to the Caregiver Program (the Program), formerly known as the Live-In Caregiver Program: (a) what individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments did the government consult as part of the process of developing the changes; (b) when did each consultation in (a) occur; (c) how did each consultation in (a) occur; (d) who in the government carried out each consultation in (a); (e) for past or current participants in the Program, (i) what opportunities existed to participate in consultations, (ii) how did the government make them aware of these opportunities, (iii) when did the government make them aware of these opportunities; (f) for other individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments, (i) how did the government make them aware of the opportunity to participate in consultations, (ii) when did the government make them aware of the opportunity; (g) what results of the consultations in (a) were presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (h) how were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (i) when were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (j) according to what criteria were the inputs that were received through consultations in (a) evaluated by the government; (k) what studies, reports, surveys, or other documents were consulted by the government; (l) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for Children Pathway; (m) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for People with High Medical Needs Pathway; (n) what was the number of principal applicants for permanent residence through the Program for each of the last ten years; (o) do the caps in (l) and (m) refer only to the number of new applications that the government will accept each year, or do they refer to the total number of applications that will be processed each year; (p) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents are currently in Canada as part of the Program; (q) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents have been in Canada as part of the Program for each of the last ten years; (r) how many temporary residents does the government expect to be in Canada as part of the Program for each of the next ten years; (s) what studies has the government carried out or consulted to determine whether the number of temporary residents in Canada as part of the Program is likely to change in the coming years; (t) what are the conclusions of the studies in (s); (u) for each of the last ten years, not including spouses and dependents, how many applications for permanent residence under the Program have been (i) submitted, (ii) accepted, (iii) denied; (v) if the number of principal applicants for permanent residence exceeds the cap of 2750 in either category in a given year, how will the government determine which applications to consider; (w) who will make the determination in (v); (x) based on what factors will the determination in (v) be made; (y) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program are currently being processed, not including spouses and dependents; (z) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program, not including spouses and dependents, does the government intend to process for each of the next five years; (aa) how will the government reduce the backlog of permanent residence applications under the program; (bb) by what date does the government intend to reduce the backlog in (aa); (cc) how many applications must be processed before the government will consider the backlog in (aa) to be reduced; (dd) when will the six-month limit on processing times for applications under the Program take effect; (ee) what impact will the six-month limit in (dd) have on applications underway at the time the limit takes effect; (ff) what measures will be implemented to ensure that applications for permanent residence will be processed within six months; (gg) what recourse will be available to applicants whose applications are not processed within six months; (hh) how will applications that remain in process after six months be dealt with by the government; (ii) will the six-month limit apply regardless of (i) the number of dependents, (ii) the country of origin of the principal applicants, their spouse, or their dependents; (jj) what measures are being introduced to give recourse to temporary residents in Canada under the Program who feel that they are being exploited or treated inappropriately by their employers, whether or not the caregiver lives with the employer; (kk) what changes have been made or will be made to the criteria used to evaluate applications for permanent residence under the Program; (ll) what directives have been or will be issued to visa officers; (mm) when do the directives in (ll) take effect; and (nn) how will applicants with applications currently underway be affected by the changes?

Q-8132 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children of Canadian residents: (a) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of Canadian citizens; (b) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (a), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (c) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of non-citizen permanent residents of Canada, excluding the Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP); (d) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (c), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (e) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children under the LCP; (f) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (e), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (g) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a); (h) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (i) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (a) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (j) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c); (k) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (l) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (c) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (m) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e); (n) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (o) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (e) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (p) has the government set processing times it considers acceptable for applications by applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children (i) of Canadian citizens, (ii) of non-citizen permanent residents, (iii) under the live-in caregiver program; (q) how were the acceptable processing times in (p) determined; (r) who determined the acceptable processing times in (p); (s) what variance, if any, exists for acceptable processing times in (p) based on (i) source country, (ii) age of applicant, (iii) visa office, (iv) other factors; (t) what changes, if any, have been made to the acceptable processing times in (p) over the last ten years, and what accounts for these changes; (u) if no acceptable processing times have been set, why have they not been set; (v) what evaluations of processing times has the government undertaken; (w) what were the results of the evaluations in (v); (x) if no evaluations of processing times have been undertaken, why has this not been done; (y) broken down by year, for each of the last ten years, what operational bulletins, changes to operational manuals, or other directives, published or unpublished, formal or informal, written or oral, have been issued by CIC to visa officers regarding applications by individuals seeking permanent residence as dependents of residents of Canada; (z) for each of the directives in (y), (i) how was the directive issued, (ii) by whom was it issued, (iii) what was the objective of the directive, (iv) how were its effects evaluated, (v) is it still in force; and (aa) for each directive in (y) no longer in force, (i) why was it terminated, (ii) who made the decision to terminate it, (iii) how was the decision to terminate it communicated to visa officers?

Q-8142 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to the government’s implementation of motion M-456, a Pan-Canadian Strategy for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: (a) what steps has the government taken or do they plan on taking to implement this strategy; (b) what are the needs identified by the government that this strategy could address; (c) what information or data has been provided or solicited from Statistics Canada or the Canadian Institute for Health of Information regarding patient needs for palliative and end-of-life care; (d) what standards and best practices have been identified for this strategy; (e) what stakeholders and medical experts have been identified as collaborators in developing this strategy, and which of them have been approached; (f) which provinces and territories have been approached to discuss the establishment of this strategy; (g) what steps has the government taken to implement this strategy for the jurisdictions where it has a direct responsibility for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, services to First Nations on reserve, the military, and prisoners; and (h) what palliative and end-of-life care programs are currently in place where the government has a direct responsibility for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, services to First Nations on reserve, the military, and prisoners?

Q-8152 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With respect to each expenditure contained in each budget or budget implementation bill since fiscal year 2006-2007, inclusively: (a) has the Department of Finance done an economic impact analysis of the expenditure; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what is the date, name and file number of any record which constitutes part of that analysis; (c) has the Department of Finance relied on any economic impact analysis of any organization outside government on the expenditure or not; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, (i) which organizations analysed the measure, (ii) what is the date, name and file number of any record obtained from that organization which constitutes part of that analysis?

Q-8162 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance through Enhanced Exchange of Information under the Convention Between the United States of America and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (the Agreement), the government’s Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament (the Policy), and the statement of Peter Van Loan, Government House Leader, in the House on Monday, April 28, 2014, that “in this case, the fact is that the government, the cabinet, actually did grant such an exemption to the tabling policy. As such, the very words of the policy, the requirements of the policy, have been followed. The processes for obtaining the exemption were obtained. As a result, the requirement that it be tabled in the House 21 days in advance of the legislation being introduced is not necessary and the policy is fully complied with” (the Statement): (a) was an exemption to the government’s Policy granted with respect to the Agreement; (b) what is the difference between an “exemption” and an “exception” in terms of the Policy; (c) if the word “exception” is substituted for “exemption” is the Statement accurate; (d) on what basis was the Statement made; (e) how was the Government House Leader informed of the exemption or exception being granted to the Policy; (f) what documents or memos were created regarding this exemption or exception and what are their access or control numbers; (g) who was involved in this decision to grant an exemption or exception and at what stage were they involved; (h) what was the process, step-by-step, by which this Agreement was granted an exemption or exception; (i) who reviewed the decision to grant an exemption or exception, (i) when, (ii) why, (iii) how; (j) does the Policy apply to the Agreement, and how; (k) between what departments does correspondence exist regarding the tabling of the Agreement under the Policy and what are the file numbers for these documents; (l) on what date was the Agreement concluded; (m) on what date was the Agreement tabled in Parliament; (n) on what date was the Agreement ratified; (o) when was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement; (p) how was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement; (q) when was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement; (r) how was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement; (s) when and by what means is the House usually informed that an exception has been granted to the Policy; (t) in the absence of the point of order prompting the Government House Leader's response, how and when would the House have been informed of the exemption; (u) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exceptions being granted to the Policy; (v) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exceptions have been granted; (w) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exemptions being granted to the Policy; (x) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exemptions have been granted; (y) what does “urgent” mean in the context of the Policy; (z) how was the ratification of the Agreement determined to be urgent; (aa) who made the determination in (z), (i) how, (ii) on the basis of what information, (iii) with what authority, (iv) under what criteria; (bb) how was the decision in (z) reviewed, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) when, (iv) by what criteria; (cc) who are or were the lead ministers with respect to the Agreement in terms of the Policy and how was this determined; (dd) when and how did the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the lead ministers seek approval from the Prime Minister for an exemption to the treaty tabling process; (ee) when was the approval in (dd) granted and how; (ff) what correspondence is available – with file and control number – to corroborate the information provided in response to (dd) and (ee); (gg) was a “joint-letter that clearly articulates the rationale to proceed with the ratification, without tabling in the House of Commons” created; (hh) with respect to the letter in (gg), (i) who created this letter, (ii) when is it dated, (iii) how can it be obtained, (iv) who has access to it, (v) to whom is it addressed; (ii) was the letter drafted in consultation with the Treaty Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the relevant Secretariat in the Privy Council Office; (jj) what documentation exists – with file or control number for each document – to corroborate the information provided in response to (ii); (kk) who is responsible for retention and access of such joint letters; (ll) with respect to the Agreement, were the responsible ministers and the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware early on of the need to request an exemption to the treaty process prior to obtaining Cabinet authority to sign a treaty; (mm) how is “early on” defined for purposes of the Policy; (nn) how is “aware” defined for purposes of this provision in the Policy; (oo) was a request made in a Memorandum to Cabinet, seeking policy approval for the Agreement; (pp) what Memorandums to Cabinet exist relative to this agreement, (i) what are their dates, (ii) are they subject to privilege, (iii) who made them, (iv) what are their record or control numbers; (qq) which document in (pp) can be said to “clearly articulate the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process”; (rr) what is the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process with respect to the Agreement; (ss) who determines the rationale per the Policy; (tt) what is an acceptable rationale per the Policy; (uu) how is rationale defined in terms of the Policy; (vv) is there a minimal level of sufficiency for a rationale per the Policy and if so what is it; (ww) when was the exception granted; (xx) did the Minister of Foreign Affairs “inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification” per the Policy; (yy) when did the actions in (xx) occur and how; (zz) in 2014, how many exemptions or exceptions were granted under the Policy before the Agreement; (aaa) in 2014, was the Agreement’s rationale for exception unique; (bbb) in 2014, was the Agreement the only item determined to be urgent in terms of the Policy; (ccc) is the Government House Leader always informed of exceptions and exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; (ddd) is the House always informed of exceptions or exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; (eee) how early could the Agreement have been tabled in Parliament; (fff) how was the date in (eee) determined; (ggg) if the Agreement could have been tabled earlier in Parliament than the date in (o), (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis; and (hhh) if the Statement could have been made sooner in the House than Monday, April 28, 2014, (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis?

Q-8172 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to Statistics Canada: (a) have studies been done on how to use alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (b) what alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, were considered prior to 2011 to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (c) what alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, were considered from 2011 to the present to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (d) prior to 2011, which foreign jurisdictions were consulted in order to assess alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (e) from 2011 to the present, which foreign jurisdictions were consulted in order to assess alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (f) what studies, reports or assessments have been prepared by Statistics Canada regarding alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (g) what briefing documents have been prepared for ministers and their staff regarding alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (h) before 2011, did Statistics Canada consider the possibility of establishing connections between existing databases in different Canadian jurisdictions containing the personal information of Canadians, with the use of any form of primary key; and (i) from 2011 to the present, did Statistics Canada consider the possibility of establishing connections between existing databases in different Canadian jurisdictions containing the personal information of Canadians, with the use of any form of primary key?

Q-8182 — November 24, 2014 — Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park) — With regard to government funding: for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present, (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Parkdale—High Park, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

Q-8192 — November 24, 2014 — Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park) — With regard to Canada Post: (a) what are the details of the five-point turnaround plan to put Canada Post on track for financial sustainability by 2020; (b) what is the annual budget for advertising campaigns, broken down by (i) medium, (ii) region, (iii) product or service line, (iv) any additional internal categories used not included in this question; (c) what are the internal metrics for measuring success of any advertising outlined in (b); and (d) what is the cost of any advertising campaigns from (b) in (i) fiscal year 2012-2013, (ii) fiscal year 2013-2014, (iii) fiscal year-to-date 2014-2015?

Q-8202 — November 24, 2014 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement of $5.8 billion in new infrastructure investments on November 24, 2014, in London, Ontario, and each of the commitments detailed in the accompanying backgrounder: (a) what department and program does each commitment fall under; (b) how much will be spent on each commitment in each of the next five fiscal years; (c) were these funds in the fiscal framework in Budget 2014; (d) do any of these commitments constitute an increase in planned spending and, if so, (i) which, (ii) by how much; (e) on each of these programs for capital and infrastructure investments in each fiscal year since 2004-2005, what was (i) allocated, (ii) spent, (iii) lapsed; and (f) was the expenditure of these funds already accounted for in the economic forecasts used by the Finance Department?

2 Response requested within 45 days