Skip to main content Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Journals

No. 120

Monday, January 31, 2011

11:00 a.m.



Prayers
Tabling of Documents
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Menzies (Minister of State (Finance)) laid upon the Table, — Document entitled "Canada's Economic Action Plan — A Seventh Report to Canadians". — Sessional Paper No. 8525-403-30.
Private Members' Business

At 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The Order was read for the consideration at report stage of Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, as reported by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology with amendments.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5), the Speaker selected and grouped for debate the following motions:

Group No. 1 — Motions Nos. 1 to 3.

Group No. 1

Ms. Leslie (Halifax), seconded by Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury), moved Motion No. 1, — That Bill C-393 be amended by restoring Clause 2 as follows:

“2. Section 21.02 of the Act is replaced by the following:

21.02 The definitions in this section apply in sections 21.01 to 21.16.

“authorization” means an authorization granted under subsection 21.04(1).

“pharmaceutical product” means any drug, as defined in section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, and includes monitoring products and products used in conjunction with a pharmaceutical product.”

Ms. Leslie (Halifax), seconded by Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury), moved Motion No. 2, — That Bill C-393 be amended by restoring Clause 4 as follows:

“4. (1) Subsection 21.04(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

21.04 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the Commissioner shall, on the application of any person and on the payment of the prescribed fee, authorize the person to

(a) manufacture the pharmaceutical product or products named in the application;

(b) make, construct and use any patented invention solely for the purpose of manufacturing the product or products; and

(c) sell the product or products for export to a country that is listed in the Schedule.

(1.1) In addition to what is authorized under subsection (1), an authorization under that subsection authorizes the person to

(a) manufacture any active ingredient used in the manufacture of a finished product; and

(b) make, construct and use any patented invention solely for the purpose of manufacturing any active pharmaceutical ingredient used in the manufacture of a finished product.

(1.2) If a country is removed from the Schedule an authorization continues to apply with respect to that country for 30 days as though that country had not been removed from the Schedule.

(2) Subsection 21.04(2) of the Act is amended by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and by repealing paragraphs (b) to (f).

(3) Subsection 21.04(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(3) The Commissioner shall grant an authorization only if the applicant has complied with the prescribed requirements.”

Mr. Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes), seconded by Ms. Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle), moved Motion No. 3, — That Bill C-393 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 3 the following new clause:

“18. (1) The provisions of this Act that amend the Patent Act shall cease to apply on the day that is the fourth anniversary of the day on which this Act comes into force unless, before that day, the application of those provisions is extended by a resolution — the text of which is established under subsection (2) — passed by both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (3).

(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, establish the text of a resolution providing for the extension of the application of the provisions that amend the Patent Act referred to in subsection (1) and specifying the period of the extension, which may not exceed five years from the first day on which the resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

(3) A motion for the adoption of the resolution may be debated in both Houses of Parliament but may not be amended. At the conclusion of the debate, the Speaker of each House of Parliament shall immediately put every question necessary to determine whether or not the motion is concurred in.

(4) The application of the provisions that amend the Patent Act referred to in subsection (1) may be further extended in accordance with the procedure set out in this section.

(5) In the event that the provisions that amend the Patent Act referred to in subsection (1) cease to apply, applications that have been granted an authorization under section 21.04 of that Act shall be concluded if they were submitted before the day on which those provisions cease to apply.”

Debate arose on the motions in Group No. 1.

Mr. Masse (Windsor West), seconded by Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster), moved the following amendment to Motion No. 1, — That the motion proposing to restore Clause 2 of Bill C-393 be amended by replacing the definition “pharmaceutical product” with the following:

““pharmaceutical product” means any patented product listed in Schedule 1 in, if applicable, the dosage form, the strength and the route of administration specified in that Schedule in relation to the product and any other patented product, or product manufactured through a patented process, of the pharmaceutical sector needed to address public health problems, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, and includes active ingredients necessary for its manufacture and diagnostic kits needed for its use.”.

Mr. Masse (Windsor West), seconded by Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster), moved the following amendment to Motion No. 2, — That the Motion proposing to restore Clause 4 of Bill C-393 be amended by deleting all the words after the words “4. (1)Subsection 21.04(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:” and substituting the following:

“21.04 (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Commissioner shall, on the application of any person and on the payment of the prescribed fee, authorize the person to make, construct and use a patented invention solely for purposes directly related to the manufacture of the pharmaceutical product named in the application and to sell it for export to any country listed in Schedule 2.
(2) Paragraph 21.04(2)(c) of the Act is repealed.
(3) Paragraphs 21.04(2)(e) and (f) of the Act are repealed.
(4) Subparagraphs 21.04(3)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(i) sought from the patentee or, if there is more than one, from each of the patentees, by certified or registered mail, a licence to manufacture and sell the pharmaceutical product for export to one or more of the countries listed in Schedule 2 on reasonable terms and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful; and
(ii) provided the patentee, or each of the patentees, as the case may be, by certified or registered mail, in the written request for a licence, with the information that is in all material respects identical to the information referred to in subsection (2).
(5) Paragraph 21.04(3)(d) of the Act is repealed.
(6) Section 21.04 is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
“(4) The solemn or statutory declaration referred to in paragraph (3)(c) is not required in the case of an application to the Commissioner for an authorization to supply the product named in the application to an eligible importing country for purposes of addressing a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency in that country or for purposes of public non-commercial use, but in such cases, the Commissioner shall notify the patentee or patentees of the issuance of the compulsory licence as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been issued.””.

The debate continued on the motions in Group No. 1.

Pursuant to Standing Order 98(2), the Order was dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Government Orders

The Order was read for the third reading of Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act.

Mr. Nicholson (Minister of Justice), seconded by Mr. Kent (Minister of the Environment), moved, — That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Debate arose thereon.

Statements By Members

Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements.

Oral Questions

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House proceeded to Oral Questions.

Daily Routine Of Business

Tabling of Documents

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:

— No. 403-1033 concerning technological protection measures. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-99-03;
— Nos. 403-1046 and 403-1082 concerning international forums. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-80-05;
— No. 403-1057 concerning children's rights. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-101-02;
— Nos. 403-1059 to 403-1061, 403-1219, 403-1233, 403-1240, 403-1244 and 403-1272 concerning Old Age Security benefits. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-31-09;
— Nos. 403-1064, 403-1073 and 403-1153 concerning federal programs. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-93-02;
— Nos. 403-1067, 403-1072, 403-1075, 403-1088, 403-1103, 403-1104, 403-1154, 403-1162 and 403-1228 concerning the Employment Insurance Program. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-1-20;
— No. 403-1070 concerning youth. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-112-01;
— Nos. 403-1078 and 403-1089 concerning the Canada Pension Plan. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-92-05;
— No. 403-1079 concerning pornography. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-38-09;
— Nos. 403-1080, 403-1130 and 403-1131 concerning border crossings. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-107-02;
— No. 403-1083 concerning the situation in Israel. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-36-08;
— Nos. 403-1096, 403-1161 and 403-1229 concerning foreign ownership. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-52-06;
— No. 403-1099 concerning stem cell research. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-113-01;
— Nos. 403-1100, 403-1109, 403-1125, 403-1134, 403-1136, 403-1147, 403-1148, 403-1163, 403-1166, 403-1179, 403-1182, 403-1191, 403-1196, 403-1207, 403-1220, 403-1230 and 403-1286 concerning Afghanistan. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-55-04;
— Nos. 403-1110, 403-1135, 403-1165, 403-1167, 403-1176, 403-1202, 403-1205, 403-1218, 403-1232 and 403-1246 concerning the Criminal Code of Canada. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-23-14;
— No. 403-1112 concerning student loans. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-4-02;
— No. 403-1122 concerning government licences and permits. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-114-01;
— Nos. 403-1127 and 403-1268 concerning the issuing of visas. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-61-04;
— Nos. 403-1128, 403-1140, 403-1152, 403-1181, 403-1185 and 403-1214 concerning housing policy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-29-09;
— Nos. 403-1129 and 403-1133 concerning aboriginal affairs. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-27-05;
— Nos. 403-1138 and 403-1139 concerning asbestos. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-43-04;
— Nos. 403-1146, 403-1157, 403-1168, 403-1199, 403-1234, 403-1278, 403-1280 and 403-1285 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-24-12;
— No. 403-1156 concerning immigration. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-32-10;
— Nos. 403-1158, 403-1177, 403-1180, 403-1188, 403-1195, 403-1210, 403-1221, 403-1224, 403-1258 and 403-1284 concerning the mining industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-39-09;
— No. 403-1160 concerning the protection of the environment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-78-04;
— Nos. 403-1170 and 403-1259 to 403-1264 concerning sex offenders. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-87-02;
— No. 403-1186 concerning the agricultural industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-85-04;
— No. 403-1189 concerning the pension system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-68-03;
— Nos. 403-1190, 403-1217, 403-1253 to 403-1255, 403-1269 and 403-1271 concerning veterans' affairs. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-66-07;
— No. 403-1192 concerning climate change. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-11-06;
— No. 403-1193 concerning crimes of violence. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-13-03;
— No. 403-1204 concerning the situation in Korea. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-115-01;
— Nos. 403-1211, 403-1216, 403-1276 and 403-1277 concerning funding aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-35-21;
— No. 403-1215 concerning Iran. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-10-07;
— No. 403-1222 concerning international trade. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-116-01;
— No. 403-1225 concerning conscientious objection. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-94-02;
— Nos. 403-1227, 403-1241 and 403-1242 concerning bankruptcy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-19-05;
— Nos. 403-1236 to 403-1239 concerning gun control. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-28-17;
— No. 403-1243 concerning sources of energy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-46-03;
— No. 403-1245 concerning the income tax system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-48-06;
— Nos. 403-1251 and 403-1252 concerning the parole system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-117-01;
— Nos. 403-1256 and 403-1257 concerning national parks. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-2-03;
— No. 403-1279 concerning the Canada Post Corporation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-21-17;
— No. 403-1283 concerning transportation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-7-22.

Presenting Reports from Committees

Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown), from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented the 11th Report of the Committee, "Mapping Privacy Protection in the Digital World: The Study of the Privacy Implications of Street-Level Imaging Applications". — Sessional Paper No. 8510-403-173.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 28, 30, 32, 34, 37 and 39) was tabled.


Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore), seconded by Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic), Bill C-613, An Act respecting the friendship between Canada and the Netherlands, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.


Motions

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, notwithstanding the provisions of any Standing Order, for the present Session, when a recorded division is to be held on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of oral questions, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than thirty minutes.


Presenting Petitions

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions were presented as follows:

— by Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West), one concerning housing policy (No. 403-1287);
— by Mr. Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona), one concerning Afghanistan (No. 403-1288);
— by Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North), one concerning health care services (No. 403-1289);
— by Ms. Davies (Vancouver East), two concerning housing policy (Nos. 403-1290 and 403-1291), one concerning funding aid (No. 403-1292) and two concerning the protection of the environment (Nos. 403-1293 and 403-1294);
— by Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe), one concerning veterans' affairs (No. 403-1295).

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the answers to questions Q-545, Q-547, Q-550, Q-553, Q-558, Q-562, Q-563, Q-565, Q-574, Q-575, Q-580, Q-582, Q-585, Q-590, Q-592, Q-594, Q-601, Q-609, Q-618, Q-619, Q-625, Q-629, Q-630, Q-633, Q-636, Q-641, Q-646 to Q-649, Q-651, Q-654, Q-656, Q-658, Q-675, Q-684 to Q-691, Q-694, Q-695, Q-697, Q-700 to Q-703, Q-705, Q-706, Q-708 to Q-712, Q-715 to Q-724, Q-726 to Q-739, Q-742, Q-745, Q-748, Q-770 to Q-773, Q-777 to Q-780, Q-782 to Q-784, Q-786, Q-787, Q-789 to Q-791 and Q-806 on the Order Paper.


Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:

Q-542 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With respect to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s (AAFC) Advance Payments Program (APP) and its Western Canadian administrators, for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what amount of funding did AAFC advance to each of the APP administrators and how much of that funding was (i) interest-free, (ii) interest bearing; (b) what are the names of the APP administrators with whom the Minister entered into Advance Guarantee Agreements (AGAs), identifying those administrators who complied with their AGAs; (c) when was the government first made aware of breaches of AGAs by APP administrators; (d) how and by whom was the information in (b) communicated to the administrators; (e) what are the names of all applicants who applied to fill positions as APP administrators but were declined, (i) what criteria informed each rejection, (ii) who collected and reviewed this criteria, (iii) by whom, when and how was the applicant notified of the rejection, (iv) by whom, when and how were existing APP administrators notified of the rejected application; (f) what activities has the government undertaken to address the accessibility of advances to producers; (g) what correspondence has the government received addressing the issue in (f), how was this information communicated and by whom; (h) what activities has the government undertaken to ensure producers receive all of the accrued interest from the holdback; (i) how much interest was claimed through the Claim for Reimbursement of Interest; (j) how much money has the government spent on information technologies for the APP’s online system; (k) how much money has the government spent on resolving the problem of duplicate and triplicate APP Identification Numbers; (l) pursuant to section 12.6.2 of the APP Administrative Guidelines, how much interest was paid by each administrator to the Minister for (i) failure to reimburse the loan on the next business day following the day on which the administrator received payment, in whole or in part of those advances, (ii) failure to reimburse its liability within 15 business days following the day of learning of a producer defaulting; (m) how much money has the government spent on dealing with APP administrators who are past the allowable 45 days to submit the End of Production Period report; (n) for each administrator, what was the holdback percentage specified (i) in each AGA, (ii) on each producer application to an administrator; (o) if any of the correlated amounts in (n) differ, what was the justification given in each case for the difference;
(p) what percentage of producers have all-perils insurance documentation; (q) what correspondence did AAFC receive from existing APP administrators with regard to proposed new APP administrators, how was this information communicated and by whom; (r) what steps has the government undertaken, when and by whom to ensure that (i) documentation of creditworthiness is included in producer files, (ii) producer and witness signatures are authentic and valid; (s) what amount of funds has been paid to the Receiver General for Canada for the interest AAFC has already paid on advances under $100,000.00; (t) what amount of interest owed to the Receiver General for Canada is delinquent or past the allowable 45 business days of the End of Production Period; (u) which administrators are delinquent on the End of Production Period Reports and for how many Production Periods; (v) what steps has the government undertaken to rectify the “System Default” situation with the APP online system; (w) how much money from all government departments, aside from the APP funds, have the administrators received and from which programs; (x) when were AAFC audits of the administrators conducted and by whom; (y) when and how were the results of the audits in (x) communicated to the Minister; (z) what actions has the government undertaken to ensure that the APP is efficiently managed by AAFC; (aa) what specific criteria does the Minister of Agriculture apply when assessing organizations pursuant to (i) paragraph (2)(1)(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, (ii) paragraph (2)(1)(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act; (bb) what steps does the Minister take to ensure that all applicants have been provided a transparent and equal opportunity to apply for and be considered for the designation as an administrator while assessing organizations as in (aa); (cc) what steps does the Minister take to ensure that APP administrators currently under contract have complied with the terms of the AGA; and (dd) what steps has the government taken to ensure that the Minister and AAFC do not enter into new AGAs with administrators that are in breach of a prior AGA? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-542.

Q-543 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to the government’s full-time equivalent (FTE) employees working and studying outside Canada, for each department, agency, board and commission, and for each year since 2006 to the present: (a) how many FTEs are working abroad; (b) how many FTEs are on a temporary assignment outside Canada; (c) how many FTEs are working outside Canada as volunteers; (d) how many FTEs have been seconded to work overseas in international development organizations; (e) how many FTEs are studying outside Canada; and (f) how much money has been spent on training FTEs outside Canada? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-543.

Q-544 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to Canada’s operations in Afghanistan: (a) what is the cost of private security (i) in total, (ii) for every year since 2006 to the present; (b) for each year since 2006 to the present, what are the names of the private security firms hired by Canada, what is the value of each contract awarded to each company and what is the nature of the services provided under each contract; and (c) what rules and policies apply to the government’s contracting practices with regard to the hiring of private security firms in Afghanistan? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-544.

Q-546 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to every project approved under the Economic Action Plan that was subsequently rescoped: (a) where is the project located; (b) on what date was the project originally approved; (c) on what date was the project rescoped; (d) what changes were made to the project; (e) how much federal funding was allocated to the project (i) before it was rescoped, (ii) after it was rescoped; and (f) what was the rationale for rescoping the project? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-546.

Q-548 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regard to the comments about foreign influence on Canadian politicians made by Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Director Richard Fadden on CBC Television on June 22, 2010: (a) what are the policies of CSIS and the Department of Public Safety in cases where foreign influence over elected officials is suspected; (b) which provinces have Cabinet ministers involved in the accusations and who are the Cabinet ministers; (c) which municipalities are involved in the accusations and who are the municipal politicians involved; (d) has the government communicated with (i) the premiers of the provinces involved about the matters in (b), (ii) the mayors of the cities involved about the matters in (c); (e) have Canadian government representatives had conversations or discussions with or made representations to representatives of the government of China regarding Mr. Fadden’s comments; (f) have Canadian government representatives had conversations or discussions with or made representations to representatives of foreign governments other than that of China regarding Mr. Fadden’s comments; (g) what were the contents and results of any conversations or discussions with or representations to representatives of other foreign governments regarding Mr. Fadden’s comments; and (h) since June 22, 2010, what steps has the government taken to address concerns raised about politicians under foreign influence? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-548.

Q-549 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With respect to the Chinese head tax redress: (a) what is the total number of head tax certificates that were issued by the government; (b) how many applications for Chinese head tax redress were (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) rejected; (c) how many applications for Chinese head tax redress were received after the March 31, 2008 deadline; (d) under the Community Historical Recognition Program, how many applications relating to the Chinese head tax have been (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) rejected; (e) how much money has been awarded to applications under the Community Historical Recognition Program relating to the Chinese head tax; (f) under the National Historical Recognition Program, how many applications relating to the Chinese head tax have been (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) rejected; (g) how much money has been awarded to applications under the National Historical Recognition Program relating to the Chinese head tax; (h) what government grants have been given out for other projects related to the Chinese head tax not covered under the Community Historical Recognition Program and the National Historical Recognition Program, (i) what were these grants, (ii) when were they awarded, (iii) how much were they worth; and (i) with regard to the Chinese head tax redress and the grants as outlined in (d), (f), and (h), how much money has been spent on (i) promotional materials, (ii) advertising, (iii) celebrations and events, (iv) staff, (v) staff travel, (vi) meetings, (vii) any other spending? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-549.

Q-551 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of London North Centre for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-551.

Q-552 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of London West for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-552.

Q-554 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With regard to the government's implementation of private Members' bills, what is a detailed description of the government's progress as concerns the implementation of each such bill that received Royal Assent during the 39th and 40th Parliaments? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-554.

Q-555 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With regard to citizen engagement, what is a detailed description of all such activities and consultations currently ongoing at all government departments, agencies and boards? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-555.

Q-556 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With regard to the government's plans to increase voter turnout in the next federal election, what measures does the government plan to take to encourage or facilitate: (a) youth voting; (b) overseas voting; (c) electronic voting; (d) voting in rural and remote regions; and (e) any other measures of similar intent? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-556.

Q-557 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With regard to the legislation governing the activities of Officers of Parliament, what are the details of any discussions held or research conducted by the government concerning revisions to legislation concerning: (a) the Access to Information Commissioner; (b) the Privacy Commissioner; (c) the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; and (d) the Commissioner of Lobbying? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-557.

Q-559 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of British Columbia Southern Interior, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-559.

Q-560 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to the recent purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter jets: (a) what strategic studies have been conducted by either the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) or the Department of National Defence (DND) on future conflict scenarios that would justify expenditures on the F-35; (b) what meetings did DFAIT or DND take with other member countries of the Joint Strike Fighter program to discuss the costs of the F-35 jets; (c) what strategic studies have been conducted by DFAIT or DND on the role of F-35 jets in counter-insurgency operations; and (d) what strategic studies have been conducted by DFAIT or DND on the role of F-35 jets in the protection of Canadian ground troops in future peacekeeping operations? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-560.

Q-561 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to the United Nations: (a) what recommendations has the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) put forward to improve the United Nations’ effectiveness as an international tool; (b) what strategic reviews has DFAIT produced regarding the United Nations and Canada’s role within it; (c) what briefing papers has DFAIT received or produced regarding possible reforms to the United Nations emergency relief protocol; and (d) what recommendations has DFAIT put forward regarding possible reforms to the United Nations emergency relief protocol? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-561.

Q-564 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to the October 29, 2010 announcement by Justice Canada entitled "Government of Canada takes concrete action regarding missing and murdered Aboriginal women": (a) what are the initiatives of this announcement; (b) what is the description of each federal initiative; (c) by fiscal year, how much of the $10 million mentioned in the announcement will be allocated to each initiative; (d) by fiscal year, what is the planned total federal funding contribution for each initiative; (e) by fiscal year and source of funding, what funding contribution for the initiatives will be provided by other stakeholders, including provinces and territories; (f) what federal departments or agencies are responsible for implementing the initiatives of the announcement; (g) are there any third parties that will be involved with these initiatives and how much funding will they receive; (h) what is the process for reporting on these initiatives; (i) what was the consultation process prior to launching these initiatives; (j) what was the process for selecting which organizations would receive funding under these initiatives; (k) what was Status of Women Canada's role in developing these initiatives; (l) what was Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's role in developing these initiatives; (m) what are the targets and benchmarks for each initiative; and (n) what is the result of the gender analysis conducted on these initiatives? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-564.

Q-566 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to chemical spraying programs conducted at CFB Gagetown from 1956 to 1984 and the government’s management of their environmental and human health effects through to the present: (a) what is a detailed overview of the programs, in particular, for each chemical used in the spraying programs from 1956 to 1984, (i) what is its name, (ii) what were its years of use, (iii) what is its half-life, (iv) was it biodegradable or water-soluble, (v) does it bioaccumulate, (vi) in what area was it sprayed, (vii) how much of the chemical was used, including the number of barrels, (viii) how were the barrels which contained the chemical disposed of and how was this disposal monitored, (ix) how much did it cost to purchase the chemical, (x) how many people were living, recreating or working within five kilometres of CFB Gagetown in the years the chemical was sprayed, (xi) what concentrations or levels of the chemical are currently found in the area’s soil and vegetation, (xii) based on a backward extrapolation from information about current chemical concentrations or levels, what concentrations or levels does the government estimate were present in the area’s soil and vegetation in the years immediately following its use in the spraying programs; (b) were any sensitive areas cordoned off at any time since 1956 as a result of the spraying programs and, if so, what areas; (c) was compensation for damages paid to farms in the area surrounding CFB Gagetown from 1956 to 1984 and, if so, in what amounts; (d) what was the total cost of the spraying programs for each year from 1956 to 1984; (e) what is the ranking of the years 1956 through 1984 in terms of the amount of chemicals sprayed each year; (f) in what years and in what specific locations were each of the Agents Orange, Purple and White sprayed; (g) what are the details of every environmental and health and safety warning provided to Canadian Forces (CF) members, their families and the civilian population of the surrounding areas, in each year from 1956 to 1984, both before and during spraying; (h) for each year from 1956 to 1984, what are the details of any attempts made, additional to those in (g), to reduce human exposure to the chemicals used in the spraying programs; (i) what specific measures, including the communication of recommendations, were implemented to protect pregnant mothers, women who wanted to become pregnant, newborns and children, and what, if any, follow-up was undertaken with these groups after spraying; (j) for each year from 1956 to 1984, what are the details of any biological, environmental, and human health monitoring that took place in the area of spraying and surrounding areas, in particular the monitoring of (i) humans, (ii) animals, identifying each species, (iii) potable water wells, (iv) recreational areas, (v) recreational sub-watersheds, (vi) areas where CF members and civilians worked and recreated, (vii) areas where children played; (k) which of the monitoring programs in (j) took into consideration meteorological conditions at the time of spraying; (l) for each chemical identified in (a), what were the possible exposure routes for people living in and around CFB Gagetown; (m) following spraying and in subsequent years, what was the estimated load of Agents Orange, Purple and White found in (i) pregnant women, (ii) newborns, (iii) children, (iv) CF members, (v) the civilian population; (n) what poor pregnancy outcomes, birth defects, developmental problems, cancers and immune problems were tracked at CFB Gagetown and in CF families following time spent at CFB Gagetown; (o) for each chemical presently found at CFB Gagetown that does not occur naturally in the environment, (i) what is its name, (ii) what is its concentration, (iii) how does this concentration compare to the chemical’s Maximum Acceptable Concentration;
(p) what is the precautionary principle and how has the government applied it to the safety of the environment and the health and welfare of members of the CF and the civilian population at CFB Gagetown; (q) for each chemical identified in (o), (i) what environmental monitoring currently takes place, including the monitoring of soil, water and vegetation, (ii) what areas are considered to be contaminated by the chemical and a risk to human health, (iii) what areas were recommended to be cordoned off, (iv) what clean-up has been undertaken or has been deemed necessary, (v) what areas will remain cordoned off for the foreseeable future; (r) for each chemical identified in (o), what medical monitoring currently takes place of CF members, their families, and the civilians in the areas surrounding CFB Gagetown; (s) was a disease registry developed to track the health of CF personnel, their families and civilians in the areas surrounding CFB Gagetown who were exposed to chemicals used during the spraying programs from 1956 to 1984 and, if not, why not, and, if so, (i) when was the registry developed, (ii) who operated the registry, (iii) what information was tracked, (iv) what follow-up has continued to 2010; (t) what critical integrative analyses, such as longitudinal evaluation of cancer data, have been undertaken in Canada and what information has been made available to the public; (u) what efforts has the government made to understand the trans-generational effects of exposure to the various chemicals used during the spraying programs; (v) does Canada have an equivalent to the United States' Agent Orange Act of 1991, in particular, is Canada required to conduct updates of the science every two years to review newly available literature regarding Agents Orange, Purple and White and to draw conclusions from the overall evidence; (w) what environmental, occupational and veterans studies have been undertaken in Canada regarding exposure to Agents Orange, Purple and White during the last four years, and what were the findings; (x) what years does the government recognize as possible exposure periods to (i) Agent Orange, (ii) Agent Purple, (iii) Agent White, (iv) other identified chemicals of major public health concern; (y) which of the diseases recognized by the Institute of Medicine as connected to exposure to Agent Orange are not recognized by Veterans Affairs Canada in connection with the provision of any form of compensation; (z) what are the details of Canada’s compensation measures for individuals exposed to Agent Orange, in particular, (i) does Canada offer a cost-free Agent Orange registry health exam, (ii) what is the eligibility criteria for veterans' health care benefits, (iii) what kind of treatment is offered at war-related illness and injury study centers, (iv) what compensation is provided to veterans' children with spina bifida or other birth defects; and (aa) for Agent Orange claims, (i) how many have been submitted up to the day of the extension, (ii) how many have been paid out to date, (iii) how many have been denied and what was the reason for each denial, (iv) what is the average time required to process a claim, (v) how many claims are currently being appealed, (vi) what is the average time required to process an appeal? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-566.

Q-567 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to the eviction of Canadian Forces from Camp Mirage: (a) what is the anticipated cost of (i) losing access to Camp Mirage, (ii) gaining access to replacement facilities elsewhere; b) what has been the cost to date of (i) losing access to Camp Mirage, (ii) gaining access to replacement facilities elsewhere; (c) how much did Canada pay the United Arab Emirates (UAE) annually in rent for access to Camp Mirage in each of the years Canada had it; (d) how much will Canada pay the host countries annually in rent to access the new location(s); (e) how many additional landing slots and in which airports did UAE request for its aircraft just before it revoked access to Camp Mirage; (f) how many times did the Minister of Foreign Affairs meet with the UAE ambassador since the ambassador began his role in Canada; and (g) when evacuating a wounded Canadian soldier from Afghanistan to Landstuhl Military Hospital in Germany, how many additional flight hours are added by not routing that flight through Camp Mirage and routing it through the new location instead? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-567.

Q-569 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With respect to the government’s target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2020: (a) what is the government’s assessment of how Canada will meet this target; (b) what are the government’s estimates of Canadian emissions levels in megatonnes for each year in the period from 2006 through 2020, specifying the year in which emissions are expected to peak; (c) how many emission credits does the government estimate it will need to purchase to meet this target, from where does it intend to purchase them and how much it will cost; (d) what does the government estimate will be the carbon price under the carbon pricing scheme that the government plans to use for each year from 2010 through 2020; and (e) what, given the Minister of the Environment’s October 29, 2009 statement that it is possible to meet the target with a carbon price of $28 per tonne, are the details of all documents and assessments in the government’s possession that examine how the target will be met with that carbon price and when and how does the government plan to implement that carbon price? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-569.

Q-570 — Mr. Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier) — With regard to the Applicant’s Guide for the Aid to Publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund: (a) what exact formula is used to determine the funding amount a publisher may receive, as mentioned in section 6.1 of the Guide, and is there a formula for the adjustments according to circulation volume, circulation method, type of periodical and audience and, if so, what is the formula; (b) why are farm publications the only ones not subject to the funding cap of $1.5 million per year, as indicated in section 6.3 of the Guide, and which periodicals qualify for this exception; and (c) what percentage constitutes “majority owned and controlled by Canadians” as mentioned in section 3.1 of the Guide, and is there a difference between this percentage and the one prescribed by the Income Tax Act and, if so, what are the reasons for this difference? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-570.

Q-571 — Mr. Trudeau (Papineau) — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of Papineau for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) how many projects received funding from all departments or agencies over this period; (b) what projects received funding from all departments or agencies over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from all departments or agencies over this period? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-571.

Q-572 — Ms. Minna (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the telecommunications industry and the proliferation of new cellular telephone towers: (a) how many new cell phone towers have been constructed in the City of Toronto in each year from January 1, 2006 to November 18, 2010; (b) has Health Canada studied the short-term and long-term health implications of these towers and the electronic and magnetic fields (EMF) they emit and, if so, what were the results of these studies; (c) what does the government set as the standard for safe levels of public exposure to EMF; (d) how do the standards set in (c) compare to standards set in the European Union, the United States of America, China, Japan and Australia; (e) have there been any documented cases of health problems or birth defects as a result of exposure to EMF from cell phone towers; (f) what criteria are used to establish placement of these cell phone towers, including environmental, health, safety impacts, as well as proximity to schools, hospitals, day care facilities and seniors residences; (g) what is the proximity of each cell phone tower in the City of Toronto to the nearest school and what is the name of each school; (h) what are the average Canadian’s exposure levels to EMF on a daily basis at home; (i) what is the exposure level emitted by cell phone towers; and (j) is the government regularly testing EMF from these cell phone towers and, if so, how often? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-572.

Q-573 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to Western Economic Diversification Canada, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, how much did each spend on communication in each fiscal year from 2000-2001 to 2009-2010? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-573.

Q-576 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to Canada's campaign for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations: (a) what are the total expenditures for the campaign; (b) what are the costs and descriptions of travel expenses incurred by each Minister, Parliamentary Secretary and their exempt staff where the campaign was a subject of discussion; (c) what are the costs and descriptions of hospitality expenses incurred by each Minister and Parliamentary Secretary where the campaign was a subject of discussion; (d) what are the costs and descriptions of gifts to foreign officials in support of the campaign; and (e) what are the costs and descriptions of printed materials produced in support of the campaign? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-576.

Q-577 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — For each of the financial quarters from 2008 until today, what are the details of any contract between Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and the following companies, including what prompted the issuing of the contract, who were the staff from the company that worked on the contract and what use was made of the results of each contract or what were the deliverables of the contract and, for each of the contracts, what steps did INAC take to determine if the contractee was lobbying INAC on other issues: (a) Laurier Research Group Limited; (b) Halifax Group; (c) Bay Street Research and Records Management Inc.; (d) Publicmetrics; (e) Centre for Public Management Inc.; (f) Delsys Research Group Inc.; (g) Accenture; (h) Canadian Development Consultants Inc.; (i) Hallux Consulting Inc.; (j) Stratum Associates; (k) Public History Inc.; (l) Wampum Records; (m) Stratos Inc.; (n) Workgroup Designs Inc.; (o) Joan Holmes & Associates Inc.; (p) Naut Sa Mawt Resources Groups Inc.; (q) Institute on Governance; (r) The History Group Inc.; (s) Forest Communications Inc.; (t) Smith Research Inc.; (u) Sea Mist Consultants; (v) Nisha Technologies Inc.; (w) Prairie Research Associates Inc.; (x) Rawson Group Initiatives Inc.; (y) Bronson Consulting Group; and (z) Sussex Circle? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-577.

Q-578 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to cases awaiting Ministerial Relief decisions from the Canada Border Services Agency, broken down by country, what is: (a) their number; (b) the average duration of wait; (c) the rationale for the multiple years of delays in making a decision; (d) the number of staff assigned to clear the backlog; (e) the number of cases appealed to the Federal Court as a result of an unreasonable delay; and (f) the cost to the government to defend these delays in Federal Court? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-578.

Q-579 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to the $1.48 billion dollar investment pledged under the ecoENERGY for Renewable Power Initiative, for each of the fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted; (b) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted to boost Canada’s supply of wind sources, and who were the beneficiaries of that funding; (c) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted to boost Canada’s supply of biomass energy sources, and who were the beneficiaries of that funding; (d) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted to boost Canada’s small hydro and ocean energy sources, and who were the beneficiaries of that funding; (e) how many jobs were maintained by the Initiative; and (f) how many jobs were created by the Initiative? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-579.

Q-581 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to the $400 million dedicated to Canada Health Infoway in Budget 2007: (a) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted for each of the fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; (b) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted for each province and territory in Canada for each of those fiscal years; (c) what were the specific projects, initiatives and undertakings developed as a result of the funding in each of those fiscal years; (d) what were the emergency room wait times in each of the provinces and territories in the fiscal year before said provinces and territories received their first increment of funding; and (e) what are the emergency room wait times in each of the provinces and territories, for each of those fiscal years, since said provinces and territories received their first increment of funding? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-581.

Q-583 — Mr. Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming) — With respect to the compassionate care benefits administered by Service Canada: (a) how many Canadians or permanent residents applied for the benefits between the first day they became available and December 31, 2008, distributed by calendar year; and (b) how many Canadians or permanent residents received the benefits between the first day they became available and December 31, 2008, distributed by calendar year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-583.

Q-584 — Mr. Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming) — With respect to the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario and each regional Economic Development Agency: (a) what is the detailed economic projection or forecast for each region of Canada with an Economic Development Agency; (b) what is the detailed economic projection or forecast for Northern Ontario; (c) in detail, what economic benefit did the Economic Development Agency for each region possessing such an Agency provide to that region; (d) in detail, what economic benefit did the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario provide to that region; (e) for each government project in Northern Ontario, what are the (i) name of the project, (ii) location of the project, (iii) amount of government funding, (iv) start date, (v) state of completion, (vi) cooperating agencies; (f) for each government project in each region with an Economic Development Agency, what are the (i) name of the project, (ii) location of the project, (iii) amount of government funding, (iv) start date, (v) state of completion, (vi) cooperating agencies; and (g) in detail, what is the projected economic impact on Northern Ontario of the establishment of a regional Economic Development Agency in Northern Ontario detailed in any and each government report examining, centrally or peripherally, a proposal therefor, produced between 2006 and the present? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-584.

Q-586 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to long-term care (LTC) medical facilities for veterans: (a) by province and territory, what is the history and the rationale for the closure of LTC medical facilities for veterans including, for each facility closed, (i) the name of the facility, (ii) the number of beds closed, (iii) the date of each closure, (iv) what became of the facility; (b) what are the requirements for access to LTC facilities for (i) Second World War veterans, (ii) modern day veterans; (c) what are the health challenges and, if possible, statistics for each identified challenge for (i) Second World War veterans, (ii) modern day veterans; (d) what percentage of Second World War veterans in LTC facilities have dementia or mental health challenges; (e) regarding Korean War veterans, (i) what percentage of them are expected to develop dementia or mental health challenges, (ii) what additional impacts might Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury play in serving these patients, (iii) by province and territory, what planning has been undertaken to meet this increasing demand, (iv) what, if any, thought has been given to developing specialized centres or beds to meet the increasing needs of this veteran population; (f) by province and territory, what are all LTC facilities (including hospitals, care, community care, and contract facilities) available to Second World War veterans and, for each facility, (i) how many beds are available, and how many were available at the facility’s maximum use, (ii) what is the wait time, (iii) what are the standards of care, how are they measured and how often, (iv) what are all specialized programs available to meet the medical needs of the aging veteran population, (v) what are all specialized programs available to veterans to improve their quality of life, (vi) what is the average distance of the facility from a veteran’s home or family, (vii) how many veterans are currently residing in the facility, (viii) what is the average stay of a veteran, (ix) what is the average cost per bed in the facility, (x) what is the average cost to the veteran, (xi) what is the average cost to the veteran’s family; (g) by province and territory, for each LTC facility identified in (f) and modern veterans, (i) how many beds are available, and how many were available at the facility’s maximum use, (ii) what is the wait time, (iii) what are the standards of care, how are they measured and how often, (iv) what are all specialized programs available to meet the medical needs of the aging veteran population, (v) what are all specialized programs available to veterans to improve their quality of life, (vi) what is the average distance of the facility from a veteran’s home or family, (vii) how many veterans are currently residing in the facility, and how this is expected to change over the next five to ten year period, (viii) what is the average stay of a veteran, (ix) what is the average cost per bed in the facility, (x) what is the average cost to the veteran, (xi) what is the average cost to the veteran’s family; (h) what are examples of (i) unique facilities, (ii) unique specialized programs to meet medical needs, (iii) unique programs to improve quality of life that might be replicated in other provinces and territories for Second World War veterans; (i) by province and territory, what are the requirements for Second World War veterans (i) to qualify to receive home care and health care benefits while they wait at home for an available bed, (ii) to be placed in a long-term care bed in a community facility; (j) by province and territory, how many veterans are currently on a wait list for LTC facilities (i) for Second World War veterans, (ii) modern day veterans;
(k) how does Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) determine what it will contribute to the cost of a Second World War veteran’s long-term care and a modern day veteran’s care, and what is the (i) average monthly pay-out for each group, (ii) short-fall that must be provided by veterans, families or caregivers, by province and territory; (l) by province and territory, what are the comprehensive statistics from 2005 to 2010 regarding the demand by the Second World War veteran population and the modern day veteran population for beds, and what is the projection for demand over the next five years for each identified population; (m) by province and territory, for each LTC facility that do not appear to be using its full capacity, (i) what is the name of the facility, (ii) how many priority access beds are not being used, (iii) is there is a wait list, (iv) do forecasts show a need for beds in the future, (v) what plans, if any, are being made for the facility, (vi) how will VAC work with the facility and the province or territory to ensure a smooth transition; (n) what, if any, consideration has been given to expand the definition of eligible veterans for LTC facilities to include modern day veterans, and what eligibility criteria might be put in place; and (o) what challenges do modern day veterans have in accessing specialized LTC facilities, including, but not limited to, (i) competing with the general public for beds in LTC homes or hospitals, (ii) long wait lists, (iii) long distances from a veteran’s home and family, (iv) lack of expertise to address veterans needs such as amputee rehabilitation, PTSD treatment, and severe body and head trauma? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-586.

Q-587 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to nuclear testing and operations: (a) what are each above-ground nuclear weapons trials in which Canadian military personnel participated between 1946 and 1963, and for each trial, (i) what was the number of Canadian personnel, (ii) what was their branch of the forces or to which branch were they related, in the case of civilian employees of the Government of Canada attached to elements of the air, army or naval forces of Canada for the purpose of scientific or technical support to the forces, (iii) what were their assigned tasks, (iv) did a radiation detection team go in before the test to establish the ‘background’ radiation levels and, if so, what were the measured levels, (v) what was the size of the test, (vi) what were measured levels of nuclear fall-out, (vii) what precautions were taken to protect personnel, (viii) what was the distance from the test, specifying, if any, varying distances for different groups, (ix) what was the length of exposure, (x) what were possible exposure routes, (xi) what was the average number of showers taken by those exposed, and any other decontamination methods employed, (xii) what were the measurements of contamination taken of personnel, and specifically any samples taken, (xiii) were any personnel measured for radiation levels after each shower or other decontamination methods employed, (xiv) were any health effects reported at the time of the test, including, but not limited to, nausea, diarrhoea, hair loss, radiation burns, vomiting, or radiation poisoning, (xv) was there any follow-up with personnel, including, but not limited to, dose reconstruction and samples, (xvi) is there any long-term tracking of health effects and trans-generational effects through a registry; (b) regarding Canadian military personnel and civilian employees of the Government of Canada attached to elements of the air, army or naval forces of Canada for the purpose of scientific or technical support to the forces involved in the two Chalk River Reactor clean-ups in 1952 and 1958, (i) what was their number, (ii) what was their branch of the forces, (iii) what were their assigned tasks, (iv) what were the measured levels of nuclear contamination in the Chalk River Reactors in both 1952 and 1958, (v) what precautions were taken to protect personnel, (vi) what were the measured levels of nuclear contamination of those exposed, and any samples taken, (vii) what was the length of exposure, (viii) what were possible exposure routes, (ix) what was the average number of showers taken by those exposed, and any other decontamination methods employed, (x) were personnel measured for radiation levels after each shower or other decontamination methods employed, (xi) were any health effects reported at the time of the clean-up, including, but not limited to, nausea, diarrhoea, hair loss, radiation burns, vomiting, or radiation poisoning, (xii) was there any follow-up with personnel, including, but not limited to, dose reconstruction and samples, (xiii) is there any long-term tracking of health effects and trans-generational effects through a registry; (c) what was “Task Force Warrior”, (i) how many people were employed, (ii) how many blasts were they exposed to, (iii) were there witnesses and, if so, how far were they stationed from the blasts, and how were they protected, (iv) how many of “Task Force Warrior” members have died, (v) what was their cause of death; (d) in ascending order of magnitude, what were the exposure levels for all identified incidents in (a), (b) and (c); (e) in ascending order of magnitude, what was the length of exposure for all identified incidents in (a), (b) and (c); (f) combining the information in (d) and (e) and other dose reconstruction methods, what was the severity of the event in ascending order for all tests; (g) what, if any, poor pregnancy outcomes, birth defects, developmental problems, cancers, cataracts and cardiovascular problems were tracked among Canadian Forces personnel and Government of Canada employees who supported the forces, following nuclear testing and the Chalk River clean-up for the years (i) 1946 to 1963, (ii) up to 2010; (h) was compensation for damages paid to households, businesses, farms, etc. in the area surrounding Chalk River in the years following 1952 and 1958 and, if so, in what amounts; (i) was a disease registry developed to track the health of Canadian Forces and Government of Canada personnel and their families who were exposed through nuclear testing or the clean-up of Chalk River, and, if not, why not and, if so, (i) when was the registry developed, (ii) who operated the registry, (iii) what information was tracked and for who, (iv) what follow-up has continued to 2010; (j) what critical integrative analyses, such as longitudinal evaluation of cancer amongst the two populations have been undertaken in Canada, and what information has been made available to the public; (k) what, if any, efforts has the government made to understand the trans-generational effects of exposure to radiation through nuclear testing and the clean-up of Chalk River;
(l) what are all environmental, occupational, and veterans studies undertaken in Canada regarding exposure to radiation through nuclear testing or clean-up of Chalk River, and their findings; (m) what process was developed to identify an appropriate form of recognition beyond pension for both nuclear testing and the clean-up of Chalk River, (i) who was engaged in the process both within and across government agencies, (ii) what are all relevant stakeholders who were engaged, (iii) for each identified group in (i) and (ii) what were their recommendations, (iv) how was each recommendation considered, (v) was the recommendation accepted or rejected; (n) what consideration was given to providing awards for “presumptive” radiation health issues, including cancers, and other health conditions, and why was the recommendation not ultimately pursued; (o) how was the ex-gratia payment of $24,000 calculated as a suitable award, (i) what are all relevant stakeholders who were engaged, (ii) for each identified group, what were their comments on the calculated figure; (p) of the 700 former Canadian military personnel who participated in up to 29 United States and United Kingdom nuclear weapons trials between 1946 and 1963, identified in Dr. Clearwater’s report, (i) how many applied for the Atomic Veterans Recognition Program (AVRP), (ii) how many had one or more health conditions that might have been caused by their exposure, (iii) how many had children who might have had health conditions linked to a parent’s exposure, (iv) how many would have benefitted through a presumptive awards program; (q) did additional people come forward who were not included in Dr. Clearwater’s report, and if so, (i) how many applied for the AVRP Program, (ii) what processes did they have to follow in order to be recognized, (iii) how many of these were awarded an ex-gratia payment and how many were denied, and for each denial, what was the explanation given, (iv) how many sought an appeal, (v) how many were awarded an ex-gratia payment after one or more appeals; (r) of the 200 former Canadian military personnel who participated in the clean-up and decontamination activities in Chalk River, (i) how many applied for the AVRP Program, (ii) what processes did they have to follow in order to be recognized, (iii) how many of these were awarded an ex-gratia payment and how many were denied, and for each denial, what was the explanation given, (iv) how many sought an appeal, (v) how many were awarded an ex-gratia payment after one or more appeals; and (s) of the 900 identified people in Dr. Clearwater’s report, by province and territory, (i) how many of the Canadian Forces members or National Defence Civilian Employees were deceased on the date the application was completed, (ii) what was the cause of death for each of the deceased, (iii) how many estate executors, primary beneficiaries, or primary caregivers of these employees submitted an application on behalf of the deceased, (iv) what were the specific guidelines used to determine whether or not to award the ex-gratia payment, (v) how many ex-gratia payments were granted to one of the following, namely, the deceased forces veteran or National Defence Civilian Employee’s estate, their primary beneficiary, or their primary caregiver, (vi) how many ex-gratia payments were denied, and for each denial, what was the explanation, (vii) how many appeals were sought, (viii) of these, how many were awarded? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-587.

Q-588 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — Since the 2008-2009 fiscal year, what are all the contracts of less than $10,000 awarded by Natural Resources Canada, including the supplier’s name, the date, the description and the value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-588.

Q-589 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — Since the 2008-2009 fiscal year, what are all the contracts of less than $10,000 awarded by the Department of Finance, including the supplier’s name, the date, the description and the value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-589.

Q-591 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With respect to the provision within the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act which sets out a duty of consultation for the competent Ministers: (a) which international agencies and civil society organizations were consulted by Ministers in 2008 and 2009; (b) what were the themes and subject areas of those consultations; (c) what were the views expressed by civil society organizations and international agencies on those themes and subjects; (d) how were those views taken into account when forming opinions under the Act; (e) did the consultation process invite consideration of the human rights impact of aid provided in target countries and, if not, why not; (f) was participation by international agencies and civil society organizations open-ended or limited to a select group of participants; and (g) was the consultation process public? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-591.

Q-593 — Mr. Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga) — With regard to the 2005 Montreal Climate Change Conference, what are the details of all contracts for goods or services relating to the conference, specifying for each contract (i) the name of the contractor, (ii) a description of the goods or services provided, (iii) the value of the contract, (iv) whether or not there was an open bidding process for the contract? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-593.

Q-595 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to the government’s efforts to lobby support for its proposed purchase of F-35 fighter jets for use by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces: (a) what are the details of all government promotion and communications efforts pertaining to this purchase, including Ministerial and Prime Ministerial travel expenditures relating to these efforts, as well as travel expenses of other government officials or representatives and members of the Canadian Forces who have been dispatched across the country to discuss this issue with private individuals or organizations (i) between January 1, 2010 and May 26, 2010, (ii) between May 27, 2010 and July 15, 2010, (iii) since July 16, 2010; and (b) how many person-hours have officials and officers from the Canadian Forces dedicated to promoting and communicating this purchase since July 16, 2010? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-595.

Q-596 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to tobacco use in Canada: (a) for each year between 2000 and 2009, (i) on average, how many Canadian children started smoking every day, (ii) what percentage of 15-year-olds became regular smokers, (iii) how many adults smoked, (iv) how many working days were lost as a result of smoking-related illnesses, (v) what percentage of smokers who continued to smoke died before they reached age 65, (vi) how many deaths were caused by smoking, and how did tobacco-related deaths rank in terms of premature and preventable deaths, (vii) how many life years were lost to tobacco use, (viii) what percentage of Canadians gave up smoking, (ix) how much money did the government raise in cigarette taxes; (b) for the periods from 2000 to 2005 and 2006 to 2009, what were the financial and human health costs of smoking in Canada, including, but not limited to, (i) morbidity and mortality of smokers, (ii) morbidity and mortality costs of those exposed to second-hand smoke, (iii) drug costs, (iv) hospital costs, (v) institutional costs, (vi) physician costs, (vii) workers' absenteeism, (viii) future earnings lost by reason of death, (ix) fires; (c) is Health Canada required by law to refresh tobacco warnings and, if so, how often; (d) why has Canada not refreshed or enlarged the health warning messages that appear on its cigarette packages since 2000; (e) have any stakeholders (i) asked the government to revise the Tobacco Products Information Regulations (TPIR) to refresh the current cigarette health warnings, (ii) asked the government not to revise these regulations and, if so, who were they and on what date were these representations made; (f) with respect to the renewal of the TPIR, and since September 1, 2009, has any elected representative or official associated with the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office, Justice Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Industry Canada or Health Canada met with any industry associations, manufacturers or importers of tobacco products or their representatives and, if so, with whom and on which dates;
(g) has the government reviewed the consistency of mandating health warning messages that occupy 70 percent or more of the principal display space of tobacco product packaging with international trade, intellectual property, investment or other commercial agreements to which Canada is a party and, if so, what decisions were made in this regard; (h) has Health Canada established a research work plan, policy or regulatory development work plan for the fiscal years 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 and, if so, what are the objectives of such a plan or plans; (i) has the government commissioned any studies to review whether revising the TPIR to increase the size of health warning labels would affect in any way the proportion of cigarettes sold in Canada on which excise taxes have not been paid and, if so, (i) by whom were these studies conducted, (ii) when were they completed, (iii) what were the conclusions of each report; (j) is the position of the government that it continue to examine the renewal of warning messages on tobacco packaging, but that it is not ready to move forward at this time and, if so, what detailed measures are being taken to examine the renewal of warning messages; (k) since January 1, 2003, what is the total cost of Health Canada's (i) staff time, (ii) commissioned research directed towards the revision of the TPIR; (l) did Health Canada research the use of an image of Barb Tarbox, who spent the last months of her life warning Canadians about the consequences of smoking, as part of a health warning message for cigarettes and, if so, what were the results of that research; (m) did Health Canada plan to add a toll-free, quit smoking number to cigarette warning labels and, if so, why have those plans not been put in place; (n) at the Health ministers meeting in September 2010, which provinces, if any, were supportive of (i) updating warning labels, (ii) establishing a national quit line; (o) has the government established reasons why it cannot revise the TPIR while concurrently pursuing a strategy to reduce contraband tobacco sales and, if so, what are those reasons; and (p) what consideration, if any, has Health Canada given to developing a bill to stop the illegal sale of tobacco products over the internet, by mail order and by the telephone, including the illegal sale to youth? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-596.

Q-597 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — Since the 2008-2009 fiscal year, what are all the contracts of less than $10,000 awarded by Western Economic Diversification Canada, including the vendor’s name, the date, the description and the value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-597.

Q-598 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — Since the 2008-2009 fiscal year, what are all the contracts of less than $10,000 awarded by Public Safety Canada, including the vendor’s name, the date, the description and the value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-598.

Q-599 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — Since the 2008-2009 fiscal year, what are all the contracts of less than $10,000 awarded by Health Canada, including the vendor’s name, the date, the description and the value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-599.

Q-600 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — Since the 2008-2009 fiscal year, what are all the contracts of less than $10,000 awarded by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, including the vendor’s name, the date, the description and the value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-600.

Q-602 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — Since the 2008-2009 fiscal year, what are all the contracts of less than $10,000 awarded by the Ministers' regional offices, including the vendor’s name, the date, the description and the value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-602.

Q-603 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to the Ministers' regional offices, since the 2008-2009 fiscal year, what are all awards and contributions of less than $25,000 dispersed, including the recipient’s name, the date, the description and the value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-603.

Q-605 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to federal youth programs (16-35 years old): (a) what departments, agencies and commissions are responsible for administration of youth programs; (b) what are the names of youth programs each federal organization is responsible for delivering domestically and internationally; (c) how much funding was spent by each department and agency on youth programs from the fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (d) how much funding was committed by each department and agency for NGOs focused on delivering youth programs; and (e) how many full-time equivalents are assigned by each department, agency and commission to administrate youth programs? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-605.

Q-606 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to law enforcement operations set up by and/or under the surveillance and control of the RCMP to support security operations up to and during the G20 Summit: (a) how many U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard did the RCMP Commissioner designate to serve as peace officers on Canadian soil; (b) how many U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard did the RCMP Commissioner designate to serve as peace officers (i) for security operations in the shared Canada-U.S. waters of Lake Ontario, (ii) to help secure the maritime border between Canada and the U.S. from threats to national security, (iii) to prevent cross-border smuggling and trafficking; (c) of the total number of U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard designated by the RCMP Commissioner to serve as peace officers to support G20 security operations, (i) how many were already stationed on Canadian soil at the time of their designation to support security operations at the G20, (ii) how many were already stationed in either Canadian or American waters at the time of their designation to support security operations at the G20; (d) except for those that were either stationed on Canadian soil or in Canadian or American waters at the time of their designation to support security operations at the G20, how many U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard did the RCMP Commissioner designate to serve as peace officers to support security operations during the G20; (e) on what date did the RCMP Commissioner (i) designate U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard to serve as peace officers to support security operations at the G20, (ii) revoke each of their appointments; (f) of the total number of U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard designated as peace officers for security operations up to and during the G20 Summit, how many designations are still in effect and/or have not yet been revoked by the RCMP Commissioner; (g) what were the specific powers, authorities, protections and privileges to which any and all U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard designated by the RCMP Commissioner were entitled in the course of supporting security operations at the G20; (h) what is the legislative framework authorizing the RCMP Commissioner to designate U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard to serve as peace officers to support security operations on Canadian soil; (i) what is the total number of arrests made by U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard designated by the RCMP Commissioner to serve as peace officers to support security operations at the G20; (j) what were the specific duties, services, undertakings and other such assignments undertaken by the U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard designated by the RCMP Commissioner to serve as peace officers to support security operations at the G20; (k) did the Minister of Public Safety enter into any arrangements, with or without the approval of the Governor in Council, with the government of Ontario or with any other province or territory for the use or employment of any U.S. Homeland Security Officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard designated to serve as peace officers by the RCMP Commissioner to (i) aid in the administration of justice in the province, (ii) carry into effect the laws in force in the province, (iii) support security operations during the G20; (l) did the Minister of Public Safety enter into any arrangements with any municipality in any province or territory for the use or employment of any U.S. Homeland Security Officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard designated to serve as peace officers by the RCMP Commissioner, to (i) aid in the administration of justice in the province, (ii) carry into effect the laws in force in the province, (iii) support security operations during the G20; (m) if the Minister of Public Safety entered into any arrangement with the government of any province for any of the purposes described above, did the Minister of Public Safety cause to be laid before Parliament a copy of every such arrangement and, if not, will a copy of each of these arrangements be tabled in Parliament, as stipulated in subsection 20(5) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; (n) were the U.S. Homeland Security officials and/or members of the U.S. Coast Guard designated by the RCMP Commissioner to serve as peace officers during the G20 made to undergo any training or other such programs aimed at ensuring that the discharge of their duties was carried out in accordance with Canadian law; and (o) in what way were these officers identifiable, either (i) to distinguish them as peace officers distinct from Canadian peace officers or (ii) to make them indistinguishable from Canadian peace officers employed for security operations during the G20? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-606.

Q-607 — Mr. Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton) — With regard to temporary residence visas (visitor visas): (a) in each year during the period of 2005 to 2010, for each Canadian High Commission, Embassy and Consulate, how many visitor visa applications were (i) submitted, (ii) approved, (iii) refused, including the reasons given for each refusal; (b) what regulations are in place with respect to compassionate considerations for visitor visa applicants; and (c) in each year during the period of 1986 to 2005, for each Canadian High Commission, Embassy and Consulate, what was the total amount of revenue collected from (i) all visitor visa applicants, (ii) applicants whose visitor visa applications were refused? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-607.

Q-608 — Mr. Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton) — Within the constituency of Bramalea—Gore—Malton (named Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale from 2000 to 2004), what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 1993-1994 up to and including the current fiscal year, itemized according to (i) the date the money was received in the constituency, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program from which the funding came, (iv) the ministry responsible, (v) the designated recipient? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-608.

Q-610 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With respect to the call for proposals that has been launched by the Canadian International Development Agency's Partnerships with Canada Branch for Haiti Reconstruction and Maternal and Child Health: (a) what is the detailed assessment framework, including the percentage weighting for each criterion in the assessment framework; and (b) what is the basis for assignment marks for the achievement of each criterion by the submitting organization? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-610.

Q-611 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to Environment Canada, from fiscal year 2008-2009 to present: (a) what are all contracts awarded under $10,000 by the department, including the vendor name, date, description and value; (b) how many of the contracts listed in (a) were allocated to recipients in each province and territory, broken down by riding; (c) what are all rejected applications for contracts under $50,000, including the vendor name, date, description and value; (d) what criteria were used to determine which contract applications were rejected; and (e) what are the projections for the awarding of Environment Canada contracts for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by the projected amount of contracts to be awarded and their value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-611.

Q-612 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to Sport Canada, from fiscal year 2008-2009 to present: (a) what are all contracts awarded under $50,000 by the agency, including the vendor name, date, description and value; (b) how many of the contracts listed in (a) were allocated to recipients in each province and territory, broken down by riding; (c) what are all rejected applications for contracts under $50,000, including the vendor name, date, description and value; (d) what criteria were used to determine which contract applications were rejected; and (e) what are the projections for the awarding of Sport Canada contracts for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by contract number and contract value? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-612.

Q-613 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to the failed negotiations that led to the recent restrictions of the Canadian Forces’ use of the Camp Mirage Air Base in the United Arab Emirates: (a) on a line-by-line basis, what are the known and estimated financial costs of losing privileged access to this base for the Canadian Forces; (b) on what date were these cost estimates completed and by which federal department(s); (c) on what date were these cost estimates submitted to the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office, respectively; (d) what are the details of the expanded landing rights offered to the United Arab Emirates as part of discussions on revising the Canada-UAE Air Services Agreement, including details of all constraints on seat capacity and maximum flights to any and all destinations in Canada; and (e) has the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Forces completed a detailed analysis of how the restriction of the Canadian Forces' use of Camp Mirage will impact the mortality rate of Canadian soldiers ending a tour of duty in Afghanistan and, if so, (i) what are the contents and results of this analysis, (ii) which ministers had access to these results and on what dates did they receive access? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-613.

Q-614 — Mr. Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier) — With respect to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act: (a) how was this Bill developed; (b) did the government request any specific studies for this Bill and, if so, (i) what was the subject of these studies, (ii) what conclusions did they reach, (iii) what recommendations did they put forward, (iv) what methodology was followed in the studies, (v) on what date were the studies requested, (vi) on what date were the studies submitted, (vii) do the studies contain quantitative analyses (are they supported by data), (viii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (c) did the government request an analysis of the Bill’s economic impact on creators’ income and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (d) did the government request an analysis of the different ways of compensating artists for private copying and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (e) did the government request an analysis of the Bill’s economic impact as far as fair dealing is concerned and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (f) did the Department of Canadian Heritage put forward recommendations for this Bill and, if so, (i) what were they, (ii) on what date were they put forward; (g) did Industry Canada put forward recommendations for this Bill and, if so, (i) what were they, (ii) on what date were they put forward; (h) with respect to the recommendations put forward by the Department of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada, (i) by what process were the recommendations adopted, (ii) have other changes been made by parties other than the departments, (iii) did the ministers make changes to the Bill which had not been proposed by their respective departments, (iv) in relation to question (h)(i), what are these changes, (v) for every clause in the Bill, which department proposed the change, (vi) for every clause in the Bill, which minister proposed the change first, (vii) for every clause in the Bill, which minister gave his support;
(i) did the government request an analysis of the statutory damages and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (j) with respect to the legal analyses, (i) which ones were done to determine if the Bill complied with the standards of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty adopted in Geneva in 1996, (ii) what were the results of these analyses, (iii) what were the recommendations of these analyses, (iv) were alternatives put forward, (v) what are these alternatives, (vi) who or which department conducted these analyses, (vii) on what date were these analyses requested, (viii) on what date were these analyses submitted, (ix) to whom or to which department were these analyses submitted, (x) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analyses after there were submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Industry read the analyses after there were submitted; (k) was the Bill reviewed by Canadian Heritage employees and, if so, (i) did they make comments or criticisms or ask questions about it, (ii) what are these questions, criticisms or comments made by Canadian Heritage representatives, (iii) did the minister or a member of his staff respond to these questions or comments, (iv) what was their response to these questions or criticisms; and (l) with respect to piracy, (i) which studies were done to determine if the Bill can put an end to piracy, (ii) what are the results of these studies, (iii) what are the recommendations put forward by these studies, (iv) were alternatives put forward, (v) what are these alternatives, (vi) who or which department made these studies, (vii) on what date were these studies requested, (viii) on what date were these studies submitted, (ix) to whom or to which department were these studies submitted, (x) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read these studies after they were submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Industry read these studies after they were submitted? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-614.

Q-615 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to the Department of National Defence's procurement of name badges for the uniforms of members of the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) where were these name badges made and what company supplies them; (b) how many name badges were produced on an annual basis from 2006 to date and how much money was spent; (c) are there any contracts to produce name badges awarded to foreign companies and, if so, from which countries and how much money did the companies receive for their service; and (d) how long does it take to order a new Canadian Armed Forces name badge? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-615.

Q-616 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Building Canada Fund — Communities Component top-up in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Building Canada Fund — Major Infrastructure Component in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of Sudbury, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-616.

Q-617 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to the government's expenditures: (a) what was the total global amount spent on hockey tickets by each department, agency, board and commission on an annual basis from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date, on an annual basis, how much was spent by each department, agency, board and commission on hockey equipment; (c) how much money was invested in building hockey arenas and how many arenas were built across the country under the present infrastructure programs; and (d) how much money was spent on advertising during hockey games? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-617.

Q-620 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to government advertising from January 1, 2006 to November 30, 2010, on an annual basis: (a) how much was spent on advertising by each department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission, broken down by type of media (television, radio, newspaper, magazine, non-governmental websites, search engine results pages, social network advertising, email marketing, video game, direct marketing, billboard, mobile display advertising, street furniture, cinema, outside wraps of public transportation, in-flight advertisements and other); (b) what companies received contracts to complete this advertising work in each department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission, broken down by type of media as enumerated in (a); (c) how much was spent by each department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission in each province and territory; and (d) how much was spent, broken down by country, by each department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission in international media? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-620.

Q-621 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With respect to the office of the Prime Minister and the offices of all Cabinet Ministers on December 1, 2010: (a) how many exempt staff were employed in each office; (b) how many departmental staff were employed in each office; and (c) how many exempt staff did each office employ whose annual salary exceeds the maximum limit defined in section 3.3 of the Treasury Board's Policies and Guidelines for Ministers' Offices? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-621.

Q-622 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With respect to Minister's Regional Offices (MRO): (a) what was the total funding for each MRO in (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010; (b) what amount is currently budgeted for each MRO in 2010-2011; (c) how many staff were employed by each MRO in (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010; and (d) how many staff were employed in each MRO on December 10, 2010? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-622.

Q-623 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With respect to relief efforts since the earthquake in Haiti in January 2010: (a) what are all the programs and actions announced after the earthquake that were presented as relief for Haitians in the wake of the earthquake; (b) what are all governmental announcement and communications products pertaining to each of the programs and actions identified in part (a), detailing (i) who was present at the announcement, (ii) where it took place or was distributed, (iii) what were the desired headlines, key messages, media lines and desired sound bites described in the message event proposals relative to those announcements or communications products, (iv) the itemized and total cost of each of those products or announcements, including but not limited, to printing costs, costs of transporting staff and ministers, costs of renting the announcement venue, estimated value of public servants' work dedicated to the announcement or product, etc.; (c) as of December 10, 2010, for each program or action identified in part (a), what is (i) the amount of money committed, (ii) the amount of money disbursed, (iii) the amount of money committed that was not taken out of an existing governmental program (i.e., the amount of “new money”); (d) for each program or action identified in part (a), was this program or action ever announced or planned before the earthquake and, if so, what are the details of the announcement or the planning process (i.e., when, where and by whom); and (e) when possible, for previous parts of this question, what is the summation of dollar values across (i) all programs, (ii) actions, (iii) announcements, (iv) communications products? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-623.

Q-624 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With respect to Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests as of December 10, 2010: (a) what are all access to information requests addressed to the government that have not met the ATIP timeframe and that are currently awaiting a response; (b) what are the reasons for the government being unable to comply with each of the requests identified in part (a); (c) on what date was each request identified in part (a) received by the government; (d) what is the estimation of when each request identified in part (a) can be expected to be met; (e) what is the name and contact information of the individual who made each of the requests identified in part (a) (if this is impossible for privacy reasons, then identify each individual with an individual-specific number); and (f) for each individual identified in (e), are they known to be affiliated with (i) a political party, (ii) an NGO, (iii) a media organization? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-624.

Q-626 — Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River) — With regard to departments' involvement in the lawsuit filed by AbitibiBowater over asset expropriation by the Newfoundland and Labrador government: (a) what was the involvement of the Treasury Board Secretariat in this case and what departmental opinion was provided to the Minister and public regarding this matter during the period between February 20 and August 20, 2010; (b) what was the involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in this lawsuit and what departmental opinion was provided to the Minister and to the public regarding this matter during the period between February 20 and August 20, 2010; (c) what was the involvement of the Department of Justice in this lawsuit and what departmental opinion was provided to the Minister and to the public regarding this matter during the period between February 20 and August 20, 2010; and (d) what inter-departmental consultations took place regarding this case, what departments were involved, what is the outcome of these consultations and what is the implementation status of decisions made during the consultation process? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-626.

Q-627 — Mr. Bagnell (Yukon) — On what day in each of the last five fiscal years did each of Canada’s Aboriginal broadcasters and the CBC receive their first cheque from Heritage Canada for expenses incurred in that fiscal year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-627.

Q-628 — Mr. Bagnell (Yukon) — With regard to the Environment Commissioner's report to the government, what are the equipment, boats and other vehicles needed for oil spill clean up in Canada’s Arctic that are (i) owned by the government, (ii) pre-arranged for lease by the government, (iii) owned by companies to which the government has given existing exploration approvals in the Arctic, (iv) owned by other countries in which the government has conducted research? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-628.

Q-631 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the full colour backdrops used by the government for announcements such as, but not limited to, the announcement regarding Canada’s response to the Major inquiry, for each backdrop purchased: (a) what were the date(s) (i) the tender was issued for the backdrop, (ii) the contract was signed, (iii) the backdrop was delivered; (b) what was the cost of the backdrop; (c) for what announcement was the backdrop used; (d) which department paid for the backdrop; and (e) on which dates was the backdrop used? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-631.

Q-632 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's Economic Action Plan funding for affordable housing, for every project funded, what is: (a) the name of the project; (b) the location of the project; (c) the program under which the project was funded; (d) the amount of federal funding broken down as (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan with conditions; (e) the amount of funding from other organizations or governments; (f) the amount actually spent; and (g) the expiry date of the funding? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-632.

Q-634 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With regard to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, what are all grants and contribution under $25,000 awarded from January 1, 2009 to present, including the (i) recipient name, (ii) date, (iii) description, (iv) amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-634.

Q-635 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2004-2005 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Nanaimo—Cowichan, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-635.

Q-637 — Mr. Harris (St. John's East) — With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA): (a) is ACOA part of the government’s on-going strategic review and, if so, what is the purpose and rationale for a strategic review of ACOA; (b) how many ACOA projects were funded during fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and the current fiscal year; (c) what is the breakdown by province and federal riding of the ACOA projects funded during fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and the current fiscal year, and what is the allocated amount of funding for each of these projects; (d) how many projects were funded by ACOA under Canada’s Economic Action Plan; (e) what projects have been funded by ACOA under Canada’s Economic Action Plan; (f) how much funding was allocated for each of these projects; (g) what is the breakdown by province and federal riding for these projects; (h) what are the funding and full-time equivalent projections for ACOA for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (i) how much core and project funding has been allocated for each regional development agency in each Atlantic province in 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and the current fiscal year; (j) how much funding was allocated to support operations of the Ottawa office of ACOA during the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and current fiscal years; (k) how many staff were assigned to work in the Ottawa office of ACOA during the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and current fiscal years; and (l) what programs or initiatives will sunset in 2010-2011 and are there any new programs to be launched in 2011-2012? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-637.

Q-638 — Mr. Harris (St. John's East) — With regard to the Atlantic Gateway Initiative: (a) what activities happened on this project during the 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and current fiscal years; (b) how much project funding was allocated for each Atlantic province and for each federal riding during fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and the current fiscal year; (c) what federal departments and agencies have been involved in the implementation of the Atlantic Gateway Initiative since 2007 through to the present; (d) what are the funding and full-time equivalent projections for the Atlantic Gateway Initiative for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (e) what private companies and consultants have received project funding under the Atlantic Gateway Initiative since 2007-2008 until present; (f) how much funding was committed to each Atlantic province and how much funding was committed by the governments of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador in order to match federal funding; (g) when is the Atlantic Gateway Initiative planned to sunset; (h) what is the government's position on the future of this initiative considering the global economic recession; (i) how did the global economic crisis affect the implementation of the Atlantic Gateway Initiative; (j) how many trade missions took place with regard to the Atlantic Gateway Initiative and what were the destinations and cost of each mission from 2007-2008 until present; and (k) what are the names of Canadian representatives from both public and private sector organizations who took part in trade missions from 2007 to 2010 at the government's expense? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-638.

Q-639 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With respect to the government's efforts to secure a seat on the United Nations Security Council: (a) what were the expenses for (i) travel, (ii) printing, (iii) hospitality, (iv) rentals, (v) translation and interpretation, (vi) professional services, (vii) any other miscellaneous goods or services; (b) who received the contracts for the provision of each such good or service as identified in (a); and (c) to and from which locations and on which dates was the travel undertaken? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-639.

Q-640 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With respect to First Nations treaty-making in British Columbia: (a) how many treaties have been concluded with First Nations in the province since January 1, 1990; (b) how many treaty negotiations are currently underway in British Columbia and with which First Nations; (c) how many treaty negotiations are expected to be concluded before December 31, 2011; (d) what are the mandates for the federal negotiators with respect to each such treaty negotiation; (e) are any such treaty negotiations affected or delayed by the Cohen Inquiry and, if so, which negotiation or negotiations and what are the government’s plans to alleviate any such delay? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-640.

Q-642 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to efforts to have Richmond Hill’s “David Dunlop Observatory” declared a National Heritage Site: (a) what are the contents of all Heritage Canada departmental memos on this topic, excluding those memos that principally served to advise a Minister; and (b) what are the contents of all Finance Canada departmental memos on this topic, excluding those memos that principally served to advise a Minister? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-642.

Q-643 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to the government’s intention to purchase 65 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets to replace Canada’s current crop of CF-18 Hornets: (a) what is the current age of and total number of flight hours logged by each of Canada’s CF-18 Hornets; (b) what is the average age at which all CF-18 Hornets are anticipated to be retired; (c) what is the anticipated average total number of flight hours logged for all CF-18 Hornets at retirement; (d) who at the Department of National Defence is responsible for interpreting and managing Canada’s legal obligations under all Memoranda of Understanding with either the United States or Lockheed Martin with regard to the Joint Strike Fighter program; (e) where in the memoranda mentioned in question (d) is it explicitly stated that the government would be forced to withdraw from the Memoranda or from the Joint Strike Fighter program in order to hold a procurement competition for Canada’s next fighter jet; (f) what legal counsel was consulted to determine the accuracy of this interpretation; and (g) if any, what dissenting opinions of this interpretation were offered to officials from the Department of National Defence prior to the June 16 announcement that Canada would purchase the F-35? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-643.

Q-644 — Mrs. Zarac (LaSalle—Émard) — With regard to Industry Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did the department award from January 1, 2009, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-644.

Q-645 — Mrs. Zarac (LaSalle—Émard) — With regard to Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did the department award from January 1, 2009, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-645.

Q-650 — Mr. Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South) — With regard to the government's use of Advance Contract Award Notices (ACANs): (a) how many times has the government used this type of tendering since 2006; (b) what were the proposed procurements relating to these tenders; (c) which of these ACANs received a statement of capabilities meeting the requirements for another company; (d) how many statements of capabilities from other companies where received; (e) which of these ACANs were then moved to the full tendering process; (f) which of these were awarded to the pre-identified contractor; (g) on what dates were the ACANs posted; (h) what were the related response deadlines; (i) for those that received a statement of capabiIities, when were the companies notified if they met the requirements; and (j) when were the contracts awarded? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-650.

Q-652 — Mr. Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South) — With regard to the Prime Minister's Office, Ministers' offices, and Ministers of State's offices: (a) how many exempt staff are based outside of the Ottawa area; (b) in what cities do these staff work; (c) what are the roles and responsibilities of these staff; (d) where are their offices located; (e) in cases where the government does not own the buildings where these offices are located, how much does the government pay in rent for these offices; (f) how much does the government pay in support of these offices, breaking down the costs into categories; (g) do any departmental staff work in the same locations; and (h) in cases where more than one office shares a location, which department pays for the cost of operating the office? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-652.

Q-653 — Mr. Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South) — With regard to the government's National Anti-Drug Strategy: (a) what is the total cost of this strategy, broken down by department and agency, for each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; (b) how much is spent on advertising related to the strategy, broken down by campaign and then by platform type (i.e., print, radio, television, online), for each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; (c) what is the cost of advertising, broken down first by campaign and then by ad development and cost to air or print for each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; (d) how much is spent on program administration for this strategy, broken down by department and agency, for each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; (e) how much did the government spend on incarcerating people for drug-related offences in the above years, broken down by offence and drug type; (f) how much does the government spend on enforcement for drug-related offences, broken down by department and agency, for each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; (g) how much does the government spend on the rehabilitation of people who suffer from drug addiction issues, broken down by drug type; (h) are there any plans for new programs to address drug use in Canada and, if so, what are they and how much is budgeted for them; (i) what are the government's performance indicators for its different drug programs; (j) what are the performance targets for the strategy for each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; (k) what are the performance results for the strategy for each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; (l) what groups has the government consulted with to develop its strategy; (m) how often is the strategy reviewed; (n) what are the projections for increases in drug incarceration based on the government's proposed drug legislation, broken down by offence and drug type; (o) how much has been allocated or planned for to address these increases; (p) what research has the government used in developing its anti-drug strategy; (q) into what research contracts on drug policy has the government entered since 2006; (r) who received those research contracts, what was their value and were they sole-sourced or tendered; and (s) which organizations have received grants or funding through the anti-drug strategy, how much have they received and for what purpose, since 2006, broken down by fiscal year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-653.

Q-655 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — With regard to the $735,000 spent on furniture and high-end furniture purchased from G.H. Johnson's Trading Company Limited during the G20 summit: (a) what are all items purchased and the price paid; (b) if any, what are the items that have been sold and the sale price; (c) what are all items currently in use by the government and by which department is it being used; and (d) what are all items currently in storage and what is the cost associated with the storage? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-655.

Q-657 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-657.

Q-659 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to National Energy Board, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-659.

Q-660 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to Canada Revenue Agency, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-660.

Q-661 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to Public Works and Government Services Canada, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-661.

Q-662 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to Canadian Tourism Commission, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-662.

Q-663 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-663.

Q-664 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to the Copyright Board of Canada, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-664.

Q-665 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to Statistics Canada, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-665.

Q-666 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — With regard to Privy Council Office, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-666.

Q-667 — Mr. Dosanjh (Vancouver South) — With regard to Export Development Canada, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-667.

Q-668 — Mr. Dosanjh (Vancouver South) — With regard to Canadian Development Investment Corporation, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-668.

Q-669 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With respect to criminal law amendments, has the government undertaken, or does it intend to undertake, any analysis of: (a) the gender-based impacts; (b) the impacts on Aboriginal peoples of the following Bills currently before Parliament, namely Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-23A, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, and Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act; (c) in the affirmative, for every Bill in (b), has any such analysis been undertaken internally or through the assistance of outside counsel or consultants and, if so, who were the outside counsel or consultants; (d) in the case of any outside counsel or consultants, for each contract for the provision of such services, what was the (i) date, (ii) value, (iii) file number; and (e) when was each such analysis completed or intended to be completed? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-669.

Q-670 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to legislation introduced by the Minister of Justice in the current session: (a) for cross-country consultations conducted in 2008 in review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and in advance of the introduction of Bill C-4, An Act to Amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, (i) on what dates, at what times, and at what locations did every consultation or roundtable discussion take place, (ii) who attended each consultation or roundtable discussion, (iii) what briefing materials were submitted by individuals attending each consultation or roundtable, (iv) what was the cost, including travel and accommodation for the Minister of Justice, political staff and public servants, for each consultation or roundtable discussion that took place, and in total, for this cross-country consultation, (v) why was the report produced in follow-up to these consultations not presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights until December 9, 2010, despite being completed on March 5, 2009; (b) in understanding that the dollar-amount costs associated with Justice bills are subject to Cabinet confidence, as indicated in the response of the Minister of Justice to question Q-457, (i) for each bill introduced by the Minister of Justice, has any estimate of the costs associated with such bills actually taken place, (ii) why were bills introduced by the Minister of Public Safety, as well as Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act, not subject to such cabinet confidence as dollar-amounts were provided for estimated costs of these bills in response to this question; (c) for Bill C-48, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, (i) why did the government introduce this Bill 216 days after the Speech from the Throne, despite there being minimal changes from a similar version of this Bill introduced in the previous session of Parliament, (ii) for each person convicted of more than one murder under the Criminal Code of Canada, what is the amount of time that this individual has spent in custody; and (d) for Bill C-21, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), for what reason are activities under subsection 380(2) not subject to a two year minimum sentence? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-670.

Q-671 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With regard to the $33 million dollars spent by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to finance the hiring of private security firms for the G8 and G20 Summits, as indicated in Chief Superintendent Alphonse MacNeil’s report to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security: (a) what were the names of each of the private security firms hired; (b) what were the specific duties, services, undertakings and other such assignments undertaken by each of the private security firms hired; (c) what was the exact amount paid to each of the private security firms hired; (d) what was the duration of each of the contracts entered into with each private security firm; (e) what were the names of each of the private security firms whose contracted duties, services, undertakings and other such assignments included direct interaction with members of the public; (f) what was the specific number of security officers or agents hired from each of the private security firms; (g) what were the specific powers, authorities, protections and privileges to which any and all of the employees of the private security firms were entitled in the performance of the duties for which they were contracted; (h) what was the legislative framework authorizing the RCMP to hire private security firms to support security operations during the Summits; (i) what has the total number of arrests made by employees of each of the private security firms hired for the G8 and G20 Summits; (j) did the Minister of Public Safety enter into any arrangements, with or without the approval of the Governor in Council, with the government of Ontario or with any other province or territory for the use or employment of any private security firms during the Summits to (i) aid in the administration of justice in the province, (ii) carry into effect the laws in force in the province, (iii) support security operations during the G20; (k) did the Minister of Public Safety enter into any arrangements with any municipality in any province or territory for the use or employment of any private security firms during the Summits, to (i) aid in the administration of justice in the province, (ii) carry into effect the laws in force in the province, (iii) support security operations during the G20; (l) if the Minister of Public Safety entered into any arrangement with the government of any province for any of the purposes described above, did the Minister of Public Safety cause to be laid before Parliament a copy of every such arrangement and, if not, will a copy of each of these arrangements be tabled in Parliament, as stipulated in subsection 20(5) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; (m) were the employees of each of the private security firms made to undergo any training or other such programs aimed at ensuring that the discharge of their duties was carried out in accordance with Canadian law; (n) in what way were these officers identifiable, either (i) to distinguish them as peace officers distinct from Canadian peace officers or (ii) to make them indistinguishable from Canadian peace officers employed for security operations during the G20; (o) why was it necessary to hire private security firms for the summits, rather than rely on provincial, municipal or territorial law enforcement agencies accountable to the public; (p) in what country, province, or territory is each of the private security firms hired for the summits headquartered; and (q) on what specific site(s) used at the summits did each of the private security firms hired operate? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-671.

Q-672 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to Bill S-6, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and another Act: (a) in follow-up to question Q-460, for every case in which the date of application for judicial review under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code is known, how many days have passed between this date and the date on which the offender was either granted or denied parole; and (b) for what reason does the government feel it is not necessary to provide notification to the families of victims that application has not been made, in the event that an offender does not make application under section 754 of the Criminal Code? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-672.

Q-673 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to each of the 13 airports in Canada that are designated as international airports: (a) how many violations of noise abatement procedures have occurred, by year, since 1990 and, for each of these violations, what sanctions, fines or otherwise, were issued, and to whom, by the government; (b) what enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance with noise-abatement procedures; and (c) does the government have any intention to introduce legislation or publish regulations to require airport authorities to conduct mandatory consultations with the public before changing flight paths? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-673.

Q-674 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to the Public Health Agency of Canada, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-674.

Q-676 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-676.

Q-677 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to Status of Women Canada, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-677.

Q-678 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — With regard to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-678.

Q-680 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-680.

Q-681 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — With regard to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-681.

Q-682 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency, what contracts under $10,000 did it award from September 1, 2009, to the present, including the vendor's name, the date, the amount and the description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-682.

Q-683 — Mrs. Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville) — With regard to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-683.

Q-692 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to the Public Health Agency of Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-692.

Q-693 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to Canadian Heritage, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-693.

Q-696 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to Status of Women Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-696.

Q-698 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With regard to Public Works and Government Services Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-698.

Q-699 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-699.

Q-704 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for every fiscal year from 2000-2001 to today: (a) what are the salary expenses for full-time indeterminate staff within Science Branch, Salmon and Freshwater Ecosystem Division, including area staff; (b) what are the annual operating funds for salmon assessment projects, by geographic area and species, and for the core Science program; (c) what portion of the salary funds are directed to stock assessment versus pure science and what were the associated total operating funds for those two activities; and (d) what are the various sources of funding for stock assessment and science? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-704.

Q-707 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of Vancouver East, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component in the riding of Vancouver East, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Building Canada Fund — Communities Component top-up in the riding of Vancouver East, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Building Canada Fund — Major Infrastructure Component in the riding of Vancouver East, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of Vancouver East, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of Vancouver East, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-707.

Q-713 — Mr. Trudeau (Papineau) — With regard to the Minister of National Revenue, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-713.

Q-714 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With regard to the Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-714.

Q-725 — Mr. Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence) — With regard to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-725.

Q-740 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, from 2006 to present: (a) broken down by year, how many employers indicated in Labour Market Opinion application that employees had been laid off in the 12 months prior to the application; (b) broken down by year, how many employers who indicated that employees had been laid off in the 12 months prior to their application did not provide a reason for the layoffs; (c) broken down by year, how many employers in (a) had their application for Temporary Foreign Workers approved; (d) broken down by year, how many employers in (b) had their application for Temporary Foreign Workers approved; (e) are there any financial requirements for employers who wish to participate in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, for example solvency requirements and the ability to pay wages; (f) broken down by year, how many temporary foreign workers have returned to their country of origin with wages owed to them; (g) of those temporary foreign workers in (f), how many still have wages owed to them; (h) what is the total amount of unpaid wages owed to temporary foreign workers; and (i) what is the average amount of unpaid wages owed, per worker with wages owed to them? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-740.

Q-741 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to immigration sponsorship, from 1984 to present: (a) broken down by year, what was the average processing time by visa offices outside of Canada for sponsoring parents; and (b) what is the processing time at each visa office? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-741.

Q-743 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to drainage ditches and their designation as “fish habitats”: (a) what are the policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) with respect to the clearing of drainage ditches due to their designation as “fish habitats”; (b) what is DFO's definition of a “drainage ditch” that distinguishes it from a natural water course; (c) what guidelines and procedure are used to assess if a drainage ditch is a “fish habitat”; (d) what is DFO's policy on allowing, or not allowing, the cleaning out of drainage ditches to improve the water flow and does that policy take into account the utility of the ditch for the user of the land that it drains; (e) how many drainage ditches have been assessed in order to determine whether or not they should be cleaned out, broken down by riding; (f) of the drainage ditches assessed, how many were allowed to be cleaned out and how many were not allowed, broken down by riding; (g) what is the policy that determines whether or not a land owner should be charged for cleaning out a drainage ditch; and (h) how many land owners have been charged for cleaning out drainage ditches in the past four years in each riding? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-743.

Q-744 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to the government’s Economic Action Plan and the province of Prince Edward Island: (a) what was the total amount allocated to projects in the province between the program’s announcement and December 2010; (b) what was to total amount spent; (c) how many direct jobs were created as a result of the expenditures under the Economic Action Plan; (d) what were the total expenditures in each of the four federal electoral ridings; and (e) what were the specific projects by location in each of the four federal electoral ridings? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-744.

Q-746 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With respect to federal initiatives targeting gangs in Canada: (a) since 2000, how much funding has the federal government provided in total; (b) what are the programs that have been funded in all departments, broken down by department, start and end date, location and funding amount; (c) what projects have been funded through the National Crime Prevention Centre's Youth Gang Prevention Fund, broken down by start and end date, location and funding amount; (d) when will the $11.1 millions funding announced in 2007 for the Youth Gang Prevention Fund expire, and will funding be continued after that date; (e) are any federal law enforcement units dedicated to targeting gangs and, if so, what is the budget for these units and how many full-time equivalents do they employ; (f) what is the government's national strategy to target gangs; (g) what gang exit programming exists in federal prisons; and (h) within the last five years, what are the titles and dates of government studies or reports on gang activity in Canada? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-746.

Q-747 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With respect to the deportation of foreign nationals from Canada, for the years 2009 and 2010: (a) on an annual basis, how many people are deported and to which countries; (b) how many were deported after having been deemed a national security threat, violated immigration rules, or received a criminal conviction; (c) how many countries does the government not deport people to due to concerns of violating the principle of non-refoulement, as codified in international law, including the 1951 Geneva Convention; (d) to which countries does Canada not deport people and why; (e) with regard to countries that have well documented human rights violations, what consideration is given to their records and their potential implications for deportees prior to Canadian government officials making final determinations on whether or not to deport persons, (i) which departments would be involved in such a consideration, (ii) which department is the final authority in making a determination; (f) on what basis would the need to deport a person trump concerns for that person’s welfare after they are deported; (g) with regard to countries that are in the midst of a civil war, what consideration is given to this and its potential implications for a deportee prior to Canadian government officials making a final determination on whether or not to deport a person; (h) what is the annual travel costs of repatriating deportees, as a global figure and a median basis; (i) what is the annual cost of housing deportees in detention prior to their deportation; (j) what is the average time a deportee remains in custody prior to deportation; and (k) currently how many people are waiting to be deported? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-747.

Q-749 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — What is the total amount of government funding for fiscal year 2009-2010 and for the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Victoria, specifying each department or agency, the initiative and the amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-749.

Q-750 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With regard to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG): (a) what specific new measures is the government instituting to reduce GHG that will be in effect over the next two years and between 2011 and 2020; (b) what amount will be allocated in the next budget to deliver concrete measures to (i) support climate adaptation in Canada, (ii) reduce GHG from major Canadian emitters, (iii) incent conservation, (iv) increase energy efficiency for new homes and for existing homes and small businesses; and (c) what GHG reductions is the government committing to achieve in the next two years? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-750.

Q-751 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With regard to the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program: (a) how many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people were covered by the program for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010; (b) how many veterans were covered by the program for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010; (c) how many people in total were covered by the program for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010; and (d) what was the total amount of coverage offered for prescription drugs for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-751.

Q-752 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With regard to the Public Service Health Care Plan (PSHCP): (a) how many people were covered by PSHCP for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010; (b) how many of these people were considered dependants for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010; (c) what was the total amount of coverage offered for prescription drugs for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010; (d) what was the total amount of coverage offered for private nursing services for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010; and (e) what was the total amount of coverage offered for eye glasses and contact lenses for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-752.

Q-753 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With regard to the Employment Insurance Compassionate Care benefit: (a) how many people applied to use the benefit for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010; (b) how many people received the benefit for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010; (c) what was the total cost of these benefits to the Employment Insurance fund for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010; (d) how many full-time equivalents (FTE) are assigned to the management of the benefit; (e) are there any evaluations of the performance of the benefit and, if so, what are titles of these evaluations; (f) has there been any compilation and/or analysis of complaints regarding the benefits and, if so, what were the major complaints regarding the benefit; (g) have any recommendations been made to improve the benefit and, if so, what were these recommendations; (h) have any of these recommendations been implemented and, if so, which ones? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-753.

Q-754 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With regard to the Caregiver Tax Credit for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010: (a) how many people applied for it; (b) how many people qualified to receive it; and (c) what was the total amount granted in tax credit? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-754.

Q-755 — Ms. Coady (St. John's South—Mount Pearl) — With respect to government spending on announcements and press conferences in 2009-2010: (a) how many public announcements and press conferences took place; (b) in what city and venue did they occur; (c) what was the date of the announcement or press conference; (d) for what purpose was the announcement or press conference held; (e) was a backdrop supplied for the announcement or press conference, and, if so, what were the costs incurred for the design, development and installation of the backdrop; and (f) what was the total cost of holding the press conference or announcement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-755.

Q-756 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to advertising by the Department of National Defence or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-756.

Q-757 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to advertising by the Department of Veterans Affairs or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-757.

Q-758 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to advertising by the Treasury Board or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-758.

Q-759 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to advertising by Public Safety Canada or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-759.

Q-760 — Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria) — With regard to advertising by the Department of the Environment or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-760.

Q-761 — Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria) — With regard to advertising by Status of Women Canada or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-761.

Q-762 — Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria) — With regard to advertising by the Department of Foreign Affairs or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-762.

Q-763 — Mr. Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — With regard to advertising by Health Canada or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-763.

Q-764 — Mr. Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — With regard to advertising by International Trade Canada or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-764.

Q-765 — Mr. Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — With regard to advertising by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-765.

Q-766 — Mr. Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — With regard to advertising by the Department of Labour or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-766.

Q-767 — Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria) — With regard to advertising by Industry Canada or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-767.

Q-768 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to advertising by Public Works and Government Services Canada or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-768.

Q-769 — Mr. Dryden (York Centre) — With regard to a possible tax evasion scheme in Liechtenstein known as "Project Jade" and the information that, as of June 10, 2010, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) was informed that 106 residents of Canada have over $100 million dollars in accounts in Liechtenstein and subsequently reassessed 26 cases which revealed a total of approximately $5.2 million in unpaid federal taxes, interest, fines and penalties: (a) what is the breakdown of the $5.2 million assessed from the 26 cases, specifically in (i) unpaid taxes, (ii) interest, (iii) fines, (iv) penalties; (b) how much of the $5.2 million has been collected; (c) how many of these cases are under appeal; (d) how many cases remain open; (e) how many of the 26 cases have been closed, meaning that the full amount of taxes, interest and penalties have been collected; (f) what is the breakdown (money collected in taxes, interest, fines and penalties) for each case; (g) how many of the account holders in the 26 cases have made partial payments and, of these partial repayments, what was the (i) largest amount, (ii) smallest amount, (iii) average amount; (h) how much does CRA anticipate it has yet to collect in (i) taxes, (ii) interest, (iii) fines, (iv) penalties; (i) with regard to the amount of money contained in the Liechtenstein accounts declared or discovered by the CRA, what was the (i) largest amount, (ii) smallest amount, (iii) average amount; (j) on what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein; (k) on what date did CRA begin its investigation; (l) on what date was the first audit of an individual account holder done; (m) how many of the 106 Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein have had these accounts audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action; (n) how many of the 106 Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein have not been audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action; and (o) how many tax evasion charges have been laid? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-769.

Q-774 — Mr. Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore) — With respect to the decision to purchase 65 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs), how much money has the government spent since May 2010 on: (a) flights to events for elected officials, exempt staff, public servants or others via (i) public flights, (ii) charter flights, (iii) Department of National Defence challenger aircraft, (iv) airbuses, (v) Transport Canada aircraft; (b) setting up and holding press conferences or media availabilities related to the JSF, including the date and cost for each; (c) hospitality expenses for events dealing with the JSF; and (d) hotel and local travel costs for anyone travelling on JSF-related business? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-774.

Q-775 — Mr. Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore) — With respect to all incremental expenses relative to relocating Canada's Camp Mirage capability outside the United Arab Emirates (UAE), extending until the end of the foreseeable use of the new base capabilities, including the ongoing training mission through 2014, and including, but not limited to, expenses involved in planning the move, in getting equipment and personnel moved (including, but not exclusively, fuel, amortization on equipment used for the move, personnel involved in the move), expenses involved in cancelling contracts with suppliers in the UAE, lost perishable goods, incremental costs of new suppliers (when there is a difference in price of supplies between the two base capabilities), leases for the use of new base capabilities and incremental expenses for transportation to and from the base capabilities (for instance, when flying soldiers from Canada to Afghanistan): (a) what is a (i) detailed itemization of all such expenses, (ii) total summation of all such expenses, (iii) summation by type of expense; (b) for expenses in (a) already incurred, what were the amounts paid and, if this information is unavailable, what are estimates of the amounts paid; (c) for expenses in (a) not yet incurred, what are estimates of the amounts to be paid; (d) for expenses in (a), (b) and (c) incurred in foreign currency, what is the value of those expenses both in the foreign currency and in Canadian dollars; (e) what is a detailed itemization of all expenses to be incurred at the new base capabilities; and (f) for information deemed sensitive due to national security reasons, could the answer state so explicitly and include a general description? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-775.

Q-776 — Mr. Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore) — With regard to Advance Contract Award Notices (ACANs): (a) what were all ACANs issued between 1 January, 2010, and December 14, 2010; (b) what were all ACANs where an individual or company other than the identified supplier indicated to the government that it was able to meet the ACAN's requirements within the ACAN posting period; and (c) what were all ACANs that were eventually awarded to a company or individual that were not the original identified supplier, including the name of the company or individual that won the contract? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-776.

Q-781 — Mrs. Zarac (LaSalle—Émard) — With regard to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, what are the exact, line-by-line details of all travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the Minister and all exempt staff since January 1, 2009? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-781.

Q-785 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to the Decima focus group public opinion polling on pre-budget messaging research conducted between February 18 and 23, 2010, what are: (a) the five cities in which the ten focus group sessions were held; (b) the names of (i) government officials who attended at least one of the focus group sessions, (ii) the names of political exempt staff from any Minister's office who attended at least one of the focus group sessions, (iii) the names of any staff from Minister's regional offices who attended at least one of the focus group sessions; and (c) the total expenses incurred by each person identified in (b)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-785.

Q-788 — Mr. Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe) — With respect to the G8 and G20 summits held in June 2010, including preparatory activities like Sherpa meetings: (a) what are all gifts and promotional items paid for from the Consolidate Revenue Fund, including the value of each gift; and (b) who are the recipients, including name, nationality and role at the summit, and the gift which he or she received? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-788.

Q-792 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With respect to government funding in Montmagny-L'Islet: (a) for each of the past five years, what are all of the projects funded and grants awarded in the riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, identifying wherever possible the recipients of the money; (b) for each of the projects funded and grants awarded, as identified in (a), what is the precise name of the federal program whence came the funding for the project or grant; (c) for each year since and including 2005, what was the amount spent by each program identified in (b), (i) in the riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, (ii) in each of the ridings neighbouring the riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, (iii) in the riding of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, (iv) on average, across the four ridings identified in (c)(ii) and (c)(iii); (d) what was the average amount spent each year, since and including 2006, by each of the programs identified in (b), in the riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup (i) when the Member of Parliament for that riding was a Conservative, (ii) when the Member of Parliament was affiliated with another political party; (e) what was the average amount spent each year, since and including 2006, by each of the programs identified in (b), in each of the ridings identified in (c)(ii) and (c)(iii), (i) when the Member of Parliament for that riding was a Conservative, (ii) when the Member of Parliament was affiliated with another political party? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-792.

Q-793 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to advertising by the Canada Revenue Agency or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-793.

Q-794 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to advertising by the Minister for La Francophonie or agencies for which the Minister is responsible: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of the agencies for which the Minister is responsible since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-794.

Q-795 — Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie) — With regard to the Property Value Protection Program associated with the low-level radioactive waste clean-up in the Port Hope Area: (a) how many claims have been paid out; (b) how much was paid out for each claim; and (c) has any construction started for the Port Hope Area Initiative? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-795.

Q-796 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to advertising by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, his department or their agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-796.

Q-797 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to advertising by Department of Citizenship and Immigration or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-797.

Q-798 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to advertising by Natural Resources Canada or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-798.

Q-799 — Mr. Pearson (London North Centre) — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources, for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and the current fiscal year: (a) how much did the Department budget for the Port Hope Area Initiative; (b) how much did the Department actually spend on the Port Hope Area Initiative; and (c) how many additional requests were made to the Treasury Board for the Port Hope Area Initiative, for how much were these requests and were the requests granted? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-799.

Q-800 — Mr. Pearson (London North Centre) — With regards to hospitality expenses: (a) how much did each department and agency spend on alcohol in fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010; and (b) what expense amounts were authorized by (i) the Minister, (ii) a delegated exempt staffer in the Minister's office, (iii) the Deputy Minister? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-800.

Q-801 — Mr. Pearson (London North Centre) — With respect to the decision to purchase 65 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs), how much money has the government spent since May 2010 on: (a) flights to events for elected officials, exempt staff, public servants or others via (i) public flights, (ii) charter flights, (iii) Department of National Defence challenger aircraft, (iv) airbuses, (v) Transport Canada aircraft; (b) setting up and holding press conferences or media availabilities related to the JSF, including the date and cost for each; (c) hospitality expenses for events dealing with the JSF; and (d) hotel and local travel costs for anyone travelling on JSF-related business? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-801.

Q-802 — Mr. Pearson (London North Centre) — With respect to Public Works and Government Services Canada, for every project over 5 million dollars which received money from the department in the last 5 years and which involved incurred or currently foreseen cost overruns of 15% or more relative to the initial predictions: (a) what is the name of that project and details on its nature; (b) what is the history of cost predictions for that project, including (i) dates of predictions reviews and amounts of the predictions, (ii) itemized predictions on the costs of different subparts of that project; (c) what are the reasons for the cost overruns; (d) what are the dates at which ministers or their close staff were informed of the cost predictions described in part (b), what was the name of the Minister or staffer that received the information and what is a description of the actions taken, if any, by the Minister in reaction to that information; and (e) what is, in percentage (compared with the initial prediction), and in dollars, the final incurred value or the currently expected value of the cost overrun? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-802.

Q-803 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With regard to advertising by the Department of Finance or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-803.

Q-804 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With regard to advertising by the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-804.

Q-805 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With regard to advertising by the Minister of International Cooperation, the Canadian International Development Agency or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-805.

Q-807 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and, more specifically, all pilot projects approved by the Department, what is the projected or budgeted financial impact for each of the pilot projects for fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-807.

Q-808 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the public-private partnerships for building infrastructure, as reported to the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance, for fiscal years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and broken down by province: (a) what projects have been funded, including for each (i) a detailed description of the project, (ii) the specific location, (iii) how much funding was requested and approved; and (b) what applications were received for funding but were not approved, including for each (i) the name and physical location of the applicant, (ii) the description of the proposed project, (iii) how much funding was requested? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-808.

Q-809 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Department of Industry and, more specifically, the National Research Council of Canada, what are the detailed descriptions and results of the two projects funded for Dandy Dan’s Fish Market Limited of Ship Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador, approved on May 5, 2009, and September 13, 2010? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-809.

Q-810 — Mr. Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier) — With regard to advertising by the Department of Western Economic Diversification or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by each department since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-810.

Q-811 — Mr. Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier) — With regard to advertising by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-811.

Q-813 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With regard to advertising by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by each department since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-813.

Q-814 — Mr. Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt) — With regard to advertising by the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the Agency and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-814.

Q-815 — Mr. Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt) — With regard to advertising by the Department of Justice or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-815.

Q-816 — Mr. Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt) — With regard to advertising by the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the Agency and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-816.

Q-817 — Mr. Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt) — With regard to advertising by Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by the department and each of its agencies since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-403-817.
Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nicholson (Minister of Justice), seconded by Mr. Kent (Minister of the Environment), — That Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

The debate continued.

Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were deemed laid upon the Table on Wednesday, January 19, 2011:

— by Mr. Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:
— Nos. 403-1035 and 403-1175 concerning veterans' affairs. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-66-06;
— Nos. 403-1049 to 403-1055, 403-1076 and 403-1086 concerning the Canada Post Corporation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-21-16;
— No. 403-1058 concerning environmental pollution. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-108-01;
— Nos. 403-1063, 403-1102 and 403-1144 concerning funding aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-35-20;
— No. 403-1065 concerning telecommunications. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-54-02;
— Nos. 403-1071 and 403-1111 concerning international forums. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-80-04;
— Nos. 403-1074, 403-1093, 403-1094, 403-1203, 403-1208 and 403-1213 concerning passports. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-96-05;
— No. 403-1077 concerning forestry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-75-04;
— Nos. 403-1084, 403-1108, 403-1121, 403-1137, 403-1145, 403-1155, 403-1164, 403-1201, 403-1209, 403-1270 and 403-1274 concerning the Criminal Code of Canada. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-23-13;
— Nos. 403-1085, 403-1194 and 403-1267 concerning the agricultural industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-85-03;
— No. 403-1105 concerning pay equity. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-16-04;
— No. 403-1113 concerning abortion. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-109-01;
— No. 403-1114 concerning euthanasia. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-8-11;
— Nos. 403-1116 and 403-1117 concerning the situation in Israel. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-36-07;
— No. 403-1119 concerning bullying. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-59-04;
— Nos. 403-1141 and 403-1275 concerning cruelty to animals. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-15-10;
— Nos. 403-1142, 403-1149 and 403-1150 concerning the electoral system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-76-02;
— No. 403-1151 concerning technological protection measures. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-99-02;
— No. 403-1159 concerning national holidays. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-72-02;
— Nos. 403-1171, 403-1172, 403-1174, 403-1187, 403-1198, 403-1212, 403-1223, 403-1231, 403-1248 to 403-1250, 403-1265 and 403-1266 concerning horse meat. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-47-15;
— Nos. 403-1173 and 403-1247 concerning genetic engineering. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-63-10;
— Nos. 403-1178, 403-1183, 403-1197, 403-1235 and 403-1282 concerning transportation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-7-21;
— No. 403-1184 concerning Canada's railways. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-84-05;
— No. 403-1200 concerning hazardous products. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-110-01;
— No. 403-1206 concerning unborn children. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-18-09;
— No. 403-1226 concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-111-01;
— No. 403-1273 concerning the Canadian Human Rights Act. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-70-03;
— No. 403-1281 concerning the Canada Labour Code. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-403-9-05.
— by Ms. Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development) — Report on the administration of student financial assistance programs for the loan year 2008-2009, pursuant to the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, S.C. 1994, c. 28, sbs. 20(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-773-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities)
— by Mr. Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport)) — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for the period 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2010-2011 of the Blue Water Bridge Authority, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-403-862-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)
— by Ms. Oda (Minister of International Cooperation) — Response of the government, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to the 18th Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, "Chapter 8, Strengthening Aid Effectiveness - Canadian International Development Agency of the Fall 2009 Report of the Auditor General of Canada" (Sessional Paper No. 8510-403-96), presented to the House on Monday, September 20, 2010. — Sessional Paper No. 8512-403-96.
— by Mr. Strahl (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) — Interim Order No. 5 Respecting Mail, Cargo and Baggage (JUS-81100-2-98), dated December 23, 2010, pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, R.S. 1985, c. A-2, sbs. 6.41(5) and (6). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-926-09. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)
— by Mr. Strahl (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) — Interim Order No. 6 Respecting Mail, Cargo and Baggage (JUS-81100-2-100), dated January 7, 2011, pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, R.S. 1985, c. A-2, sbs. 6.41(5) and (6). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-926-10. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were laid upon the Table as follows:

— by Mr. Day (President of the Treasury Board) — Response of the government, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to the 15th Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, "Selected Departmental Performance Reports for 2008-2009 - Department of Industry, Department of Transport" (Sessional Paper No. 8510-403-93), presented to the House on Monday, September 20, 2010. — Sessional Paper No. 8512-403-93.
— by Mr. Day (President of the Treasury Board) — Response of the government, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to the 17th Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, "Chapter 1, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Programs of the Fall 2009 Report of the Auditor General of Canada" (Sessional Paper No. 8510-403-95), presented to the House on Monday, September 20, 2010. — Sessional Paper No. 8512-403-95.
— by Mr. Kent (Minister of the Environment) — Response of the government, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to the 16th Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, "Chapter 2, Risks of Toxic Substances of the Fall 2009 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development" (Sessional Paper No. 8510-403-94), presented to the House on Monday, September 20, 2010. — Sessional Paper No. 8512-403-94.
— by Mr. Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport)) — Report of the Blue Water Bridge Authority, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the year 2010, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-821-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)
— by Mr. Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport)) — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2008-2012 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2008 of VIA Rail Canada Inc., pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-403-803-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)
— by Mr. Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources) — Report on the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, S.C. 1988, c. 28, ss. 231 and 238. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-448-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources)
— by Mr. Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources) — Report on the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, S.C. 1987, c. 3, s. 226. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-875-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources)
— by Mrs. Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) — Report on the administration and enforcement of the fish habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Fisheries Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-14, sbs. 42.1(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-325-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans)
— by Mr. Strahl (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) — Interim Order No. 7 Respecting Mail, Cargo and Baggage (JUS-81100-2-104), dated January 21, 2011, pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, R.S. 1985, c. A-2, sbs. 6.41(5) and (6). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-403-926-11. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)
Adjournment Proceedings

At 6:30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 38(1), the question “That this House do now adjourn” was deemed to have been proposed.

After debate, the question was deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, at 7:00 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).