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

Thursday, November 24, 2011 (No. 53)


Questions

    The complete list of questions on the Order Paper is available for consultation at the Table in the Chamber and on the Internet. Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.
Q-112 — June 22, 2011 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to Canadian bridges, since 2005: (a) how many incidents have there been of concrete, or other large debris, breaking and falling from bridges (i) nationally, (ii) broken down by municipality; (b) what are the details of each incident of concrete, or other large debris, breaking and falling from Canadian bridges, including (i) the size of the debris, (ii) the damages reported as a result of the falling debris, (iii) the injuries or fatalities reported, (iv) the date and location of the incident, (v) the economic impact caused by the resulting road closure; and (c) what plans does the government have to prevent future incidents of concrete falling from Canadian bridges?
Q-1752 — October 6, 2011 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to public subsidies to federal political parties and political contributions: (a) what was the total value given for calendar year 2010 as a part of the so-called “per vote subsidy” (also sometimes referred to as the "government allowance") to the (i) Conservative Party of Canada, (ii) New Democratic Party of Canada, (iii) Liberal Party of Canada, (iv) Green Party of Canada, (v) Bloc Québécois; (b) what was the total value given following the 2008 general election under the electoral expense reimbursement (also sometimes referred to as "government rebates", "government transfers", or "election rebates") including both the total national expense reimbursements received and the total riding expense reimbursements received to the (i) Conservative Party of Canada and candidates, (ii) New Democratic Party of Canada and candidates, (iii) Liberal Party of Canada and candidates, (iv) Green Party of Canada and candidates, (v) Bloc Québécois and candidates; (c) what was the total value given in calendar year 2010 via the personal income tax credit subsidy of political contributions as per the Income Tax Act to the (i) Conservative Party of Canada donors, (ii) New Democratic Party of Canada donors, (iii) Liberal Party of Canada donors, (iv) Green Party of Canada donors, (v) Bloc Québécois donors; (d) what percentage of the total amount paid out via the “per vote subsidy” went to the Conservative Party of Canada compared to all other registered political parties; (e) what percentage of the total amount paid out via the electoral expense reimbursements went to the Conservative Party of Canada and candidates thereof compared to all other registered political parties and candidates thereof; (f) what percentage of the total amount paid out via the personal income tax credit subsidy of political contributions went to Conservative Party of Canada donors compared to donors to all other registered political parties; and (g) which of the three aforementioned political subsidies to political parties has the government announced it intends to eliminate?
Q-1762 — October 13, 2011 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Fishery (General) Regulations, SOR/93-53, under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14 in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) how many infractions such as charges and warnings have been issued since 2007, pursuant to section 22 of the above noted regulations, identifying those infractions pursuant to section 22(7) of the above noted regulations; and (b) what is the breakdown of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) Fishing Areas in which each of the above noted charges were issued in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Q-1772 — October 17, 2011 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — With regard to the purchase of insured mortgages by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC): (a) how many mortgages purchased by CMHC have defaulted, broken down by (i) relative value of the mortgage, (ii) date of default; and (b) how many mortgages purchased by CMHC are in arrears, broken down by (i) relative value of the mortgage, (ii) number of months in arrears?
Q-1782 — October 18, 2011 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — What is the total amount of government funding for the fiscal year 2010-2011 and for the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Victoria, specifying each department or agency, the initiative and the amount?
Q-1792 — October 18, 2011 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With regard to Transport Canada, and the government’s role in the management and operation of the Victoria Harbour Airport (VHA) and the Victoria Harbour: (a) what is the process by which Transport Canada or its agents have evaluated, are evaluating, and plan to evaluate the impact on quality of life, noise and air pollution and the frequency of air traffic (including takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and other related activities) associated with operations at the VHA; (b) to date, what analysis has the government conducted with respect to the effects on the communities surrounding the airport and their residents of the impact on quality of life, noise, air pollutants and the frequency of air traffic (including takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and other related activities) associated with operations at the VHA; (c) what further analysis does the government plan to conduct with respect to the effects on the communities surrounding the airport and their residents of the impact on quality of life, noise, air pollutants and the frequency of air traffic (including takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and other related activities) associated with operations at the VHA; (d) what are the parameters of all past and planned analyses with respect to the effects on the communities surrounding the airport and their residents of the impact on quality of life, noise, air pollutants and the frequency of air traffic (including takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and other related activities) associated with operations at the VHA; (e) what steps has the government taken and what steps will it take to address problems associated with the impact on quality of life noise, air pollutants and air traffic frequency (including takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and other related activities) associated with operations at the VHA; (f) what is the timeline for completion of this process, including but not limited to (i) any evaluations, (ii) any decision to regulate or impose rules with respect to noise and air pollution and the frequency of air traffic; (g) with respect to the past and planned residents’ committees and any public consultation relating to the VHA, what will be the composition of the residents’ committee; (h) what action has the government taken on the basis of past results, information, and recommendations arising out of public consultation thus far, including the past residents’ committee; (i) what are the terms of reference for the new residents’ committee, including, but not limited to scope, powers, membership, evaluation criteria; (j) how will Transport Canada and the VHA evaluate and act upon the results, information, concerns and recommendations of the residents’ committee; (k) what policies, practices and procedures do Transport Canada and the VHA have in place to mitigate all real or perceived conflicts of interest between Transport Canada’s role as both operator of the VHA and as the government body having jurisdiction over aeronautics; (l) what are the current government policies, practices and procedures relating to its federal responsibilities with respect to noise and traffic pollution; (m) what are the details of all current draft regulations pertaining to the VHA and its operations; (n) when does the government or its agents plan to publish permanent air safety or other regulations pertaining to the VHA and its operations; (o) does the VHA have a complete Safety Management System (SMS); (p) what are the details of the process by which Transport Canada is assessing the application to build a mega yacht marina in Victoria Harbour (Marina); (q) what policies, practices and procedures do Transport Canada and the VHA have in place to mitigate all real or perceived conflicts of interest between Transport Canada’s role as both operator of the VHA and as the government body having jurisdiction to approve or deny the construction of the marina under the Navigable Waters Protection Act; (r) what are the details of the current timeline for the approval or rejection of the marina application; (s) what are the details of the timeline for the completion of the VHA’s assessment of the Marina under its SMS; (t) who is bearing the cost of the VHA’s assessment of the marina and Transport Canada’s assessment of the marina; (u) what is the estimated cost of all activities related to Transport Canada's and the VHA’s assessments of the marina; (v) what are the details of the impacts, including, but not limited to, impacts on safety, that the marina would have on marine and air traffic in Victoria harbour; and (w) how is Transport Canada including the impact of the marina on non-motorized vessels such as kayaks and canoes in its review of the marina proposal?
Q-1812 — October 18, 2011 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to the Correctional Services Canada's (CSC) prison farm program, which has been terminated and whose assets have been disposed of: (a) what if any studies, documentation, reports or advice did CSC rely on in their decision to terminate the prison farm program, when was it received and who provided it; (b) were financial audits undertaken to determine the profitability, financial status, and/or the financial viability; (c) if so, what information from these audits influenced, affected, impacted or played a role in making the decision to terminate the prison farm program broken down annually and by institution; (d) what were the monetary values of the agricultural products produced at each prison farm over the past 15 years, broken down annually and by institution; (e) what is the annual cost to CSC of outsourcing this food (including transportation costs), which companies have received these contracts, what is their location, what is the value of the contracts to each of the companies, broken down annually and by institution, and how does this compare to the cost of producing this food through the prison farm program; (f) what was the recidivism rate of prisoners who had participated in the prison farm program prior to being released compared to the general recidivism rate of prisoners; (g) were any of the prisons farm lands sold, and, if so, to whom and what was the value of each sale, broken down by institution; (h) if no prison farm lands were sold, are they currently being leased out, and, if so, to whom and at what annual cost, broken down by institution; (i) if the prison farm lands are neither being sold nor leased, what does the government intend to do with this land, broken down by institution; (j) what was the process by which the land was sold; and (k) is the money obtained by the sale or lease of the prison farm land being reinvested in the operating budgets of the respective institutions or is it being used for other purposes?
Q-1822 — October 18, 2011 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to the new vaccine research facility at the University of Saskatchewan: (a) what is the exact cost for constructing this facility; (b) how much money is the federal government pledging to assist in the construction of this facility; (c) what departments are responsible for overseeing and managing the construction of this facility; (d) what ministry or ministries will be responsible for allocating funds towards this facility; (e) what is the estimated cost of maintaining and running this facility on a yearly basis; and (f) what, if any, part of this cost will be borne by the federal government?
Q-1832 — October 18, 2011 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to conditional sentencing in Canada: (a) what is the number of conditional sentences issued since 2002 to present and for what offences under the criminal code; (b) what is the expected financial impact of the increased prison population and longer prison terms, expected as a result of the passage of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, and what financial impact will this have on the provinces; (c) what assessment, if any, has been conducted on the impact, including financial, of eliminating conditional sentences as provided in Bill C-10, on the administration of criminal justice by the provinces; (d) has the government received correspondence from stakeholder groups advocating for elimination of conditional sentencing, and, if so, what are the details of this correspondence; (e) what, if any, advice was provided by or sought from Corrections Canada and its unions with respect to eliminating conditional sentencing; and (f) what advice, briefing notes, or assessments have been provided to the Minister and senior officials by non-Canadian jurisdictions with respect to conditional sentencing and other crime-related initiatives?
Q-1842 — October 19, 2011 — Mr. Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) — 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 Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, identifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?
Q-1852 — October 20, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA): (a) what are the reasons for the government’s withdrawal from the funding agreement; (b) given the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ budget cuts, will there be any future funding allotted for PNCIMA and, if so, where will it come from; (c) what are the tangible successes from the government's higher-level approach in Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs) such as the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) and Beaufort; (d) how have communities, economies, and the environment benefitted from LOMAs, (i) how have they been damaged; (e) what are the government’s objectives in its higher-level approach to integrated ocean management, (i) what are the indicators tracked to know whether objectives are being met; (f) what are the specific cases around the world from which the government is drawing experience and knowledge in terms of oceans management; (g) what are the specific details of the plan to wind down LOMAs pilot projects and begin applying integrated oceans management approaches as part of regular operation and what does this means for each of Canada’s LOMAs; and (h) how does the government meet its Integrated Management collaboration objective set out in the Canada’s Oceans Strategy and the Policy and Operational Framework for Integrated Management of Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Environments in Canada without any funding for the collaborative process, (i) if there is funding for the collaborative process, where will it come from, (ii) how will the government meet its obligations under the Policy and Operational Framework for Integrated Management of Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Environments in Canada, (iii) how will the government fulfill Canada’s Oceans Strategy, (iv) will Canada’s Oceans Strategy be discarded or changed?
Q-1862 — October 20, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Claims Processing Centre in Montague, Prince Edward Island: (a) what were and will be the total number of part-time, full-time and contract employees in (i) 2006, (ii) 2007, (iii) 2008, (iv) 2009, (v) 2010, (vi) 2011, (vii) 2012, (viii) 2013, (ix) 2014, (x) 2015; (b) will the employees who are losing their positions in Montague be offered other positions elsewhere and, if so, at what locations; (c) how will these job losses affect services offered to residents of Prince Edward Island; (d) since the construction of the Claims Processing Centre in Montague, what have been the economic benefits for the town of Montague and the eastern Prince Edward Island region on a (i) cumulative basis, (ii) annual basis; (e) will the employees losing work due to these cuts be offered severance and, if so, what will the nature of the severance package be; and (f) how many employment insurance claims have been processed at the Montague Centre in (i) 2006, (ii) 2007, (iii) 2008, (iv) 2009, (v) 2010, (vi) thus far in 2011?
Q-1872 — October 20, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to Canadian Coast Guard Search and Rescue (SAR) Centres: (a) does the government plan on using the closure of the St. John’s SAR Centre as a template for the future closure of the Quebec City SAR Centre and, if so, when will the Quebec City SAR Centre close; (b) what will the total transition costs associated with these closures be; (c) how many part-time, full-time and contract employees will lose their jobs due to these closures; (d) will employees who lose their jobs due to the closures be offered any type of severance pay and, if so, how much will be offered, (i) what will the total costs associated with any severance be; (e) what was the total operating cost for Halifax, Trenton, St. John’s and Quebec City SAR Centres for 2010; (f) what were the 2010 operating costs for the individual centres, (i) Halifax, (ii) Trenton, (iii) St. John’s, (iv) Quebec City; (g) what are the government's projected annual operating costs for the two remaining centres, (i) combined and individually, (ii) Halifax, (iii) Trenton; (h) what are the costs associated with needed infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the proposed changes in (i) Halifax, (ii) Trenton; (i) will all the employees at the remaining centres in Halifax and Trenton be fully bilingual at the highest capacity; and (j) will the government have to spend money and resources on improving French language abilities by SAR employees following the closure of the Quebec City SAR Centre and what will the total costs associated with this be?
Q-1882 — October 20, 2011 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to a Federal Government Loan guarantee for the Muskrat Falls project in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what correspondence has been exchanged and what agreements or understandings signed between the Department of Finance and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador pertaining to this project; (b) what is the anticipated date of signing of the official approval documents for the loan guarantee; and (c) if the official approval documents have not been signed, what is the reason for the delay and what is the anticipated date for official approval?
Q-1892 — October 21, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to the case of PHS Community Services Society v. Attorney General of Canada: (a) how much was spent by the government in this case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department, (iii) type of expense; (b) how much was spent by the government on its appeal to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia of the British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in this case, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department, (iii) type of expense; and (c) how much was spent by the government on its appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia’s decision in this case, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department, (iii) type of expense?
Q-1902 — October 21, 2011 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With regard to the Rural Secretariat (RS) and the Co-operatives Secretariat (CS): (a) what is the total number, assigned at each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, of (i) full-time employees, (ii) part-time employees, (iii) contract employees, (iv) temporary employees; (b) for the government’s response to each part of (a), (i) what are the different occupational groups and levels assigned at each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, (ii) how many employees are in each of the occupational groups and levels assigned at each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (c) what is the breakdown of the total number of employees assigned at each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012 who work in (i) the departmental headquarters in Ottawa, (ii) regional offices across Canada, (iii) sub-regional offices across Canada, (iv) district offices across Canada; (d) what is the total number of full-time, part-time and contract employees assigned to each program since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (e) how many contracts have been signed by the government to provide goods and services to each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (f) for the government’s response to part (d), (i) which companies were awarded contracts to provide goods and services to each of the Secretariats, (ii) what were the goods and services provided for each contract, (iii) what were the amounts of each of the contracts, (iv) how many contracts were awarded without a competitive solicitation of bids; (g) what is the annual budget for each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (h) what are the total expenditure costs, broken down by type, for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (i) for each of the fiscal years from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, what was the total amount of federal funding allocated by each Secretariat (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district, (v) broken down by the Statistics Canada Postal Code Federal Ridings File (PCFRF), (vi) broken down by the “Forward Sortation Area” (FSA) as defined by Canada Post, (vii) broken down by type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures; (j) for each of the fiscal years from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, what is the total number of agencies, organizations and individuals that applied for federal funding at each of the Secretariats (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district, (v) broken down by the PCFRF, (vi) broken down by the FSA, (vii) broken down by type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures; (k) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total number of agencies, organizations and individuals to which federal funding was allocated from each of the Secretariats (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district, (v) broken down by the PCFRF, (vi) broken down by the FSA, (vii) broken down by type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures; (l) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total number of agencies, organizations and individuals whose applications for federal funding were rejected by each of the Secretariats, (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district, (v) broken down by the PCFRF, (vi) broken down by the FSA, (vii) broken down by type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures; (m) for each of those agencies, organizations and individuals receiving funding as per the response to part (k), what are the names of the agencies, organizations and individuals who received funding in any fiscal year that was less than the total funding received by that same agency, organization and individual in the previous fiscal year, including, for each such agency, organization or individual, (i) the municipality, town, or city in which the agency, organization or individual is located, (ii) the electoral district location of the agency, organization or individual, (iii) the address of the agency, organization or individual, (iv) the FSA of the agency, organization or individual, (v) the total amount of funding allocated to the agency, organization or individual in each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, (vi) the type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures allocated to the agency, organization or individual in each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (n) for each of those agencies, organizations and individuals whose applications for funding were rejected as per the response to (l), what are the names of the agencies, organizations and individuals that had received funding in a previous fiscal year, including, for each such agency, organization or individual (i) the municipality, town, or city in which the agency, organization or individual is situated, (ii) the electoral district location of the agency, organization or individual, (iii) the address of the agency, organization or individual, (iv) the FSA of the agency, organization or individual, (v) the total amount of funding allocated to the agency, organization or individual in each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, (vi) the type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures allocated to the agency, organization and individual in each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (o) what are the criteria used by the government to evaluate applications by agencies, organizations and individuals for (i) grants over $25,000, (ii) grants under $25,000, (iii) contributions over $25,000, (iv) contributions under $25,000, (v) contracts over $10,000, (vi) contracts under $10,000, (vii) transfer payments, (viii) program expenditures, (ix) operating expenditures, (x) capital expenditures; (p) how have the criteria listed in response to (o) changed since 2006; (q) what is the process by which applications are evaluated for (i) grants over $25,000, (ii) grants under $25,000, (iii) contributions over $25,000, (iv) contributions under $25,000, (v) contracts over $10,000, (vi) contracts under $10,000, (vii) transfer payments, (viii) program expenditures, (ix) operating expenditures, (x) capital expenditures; and (r) how has the process described in response to (q) changed since 2006?
Q-1912 — October 26, 2011 — Ms. Boivin (Gatineau) — With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada funding in the riding of Gatineau for the last five fiscal years: (a) what is the total amount of spending by (i) year, (ii) program; and (b) what is the amount of each spending item by (i) Technical Assistance and Foreign-Based Cooperative Activities (International Trade and Labour Program), (ii) Skills Link (Youth Employment Strategy), (iii) Consultation and Partnership-Building and Canadian-Based Cooperative Activities (International Trade and Labour Program), (iv) Canada Summer Jobs (Youth Employment Strategy), (v) Children and Families (Social Development Partnerships Program), (vi) Labour Market Development Agreements, (vii) Labour Market Agreements, (viii) Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities, (ix) Enabling Fund for Official Language Minority Communities, (x) Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities, (xi) Aboriginal Skills and Training Strategic Investment, (xii) Enabling Accessibility Fund, (xiii) Skills and Partnership Fund - Aboriginal, (xiv) Targeted Initiative for Older Workers, (xv) International Academic Mobility Initiative - Canada-European Union Program for Co-operation in Higher Education, Training and Youth, (xvi) International Academic Mobility Initiative - Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education, (xvii) Surplus Federal Real Property for Homelessness Initiative, (xviii) International Labour Institutions in which Canada Participates (International Trade and Labour Program), (xix) Labour Mobility, (xx) New Horizons for Seniors, (xxi) Career Focus (Youth Employment Strategy), (xxii) Fire Safety Organizations, (xxiii) Organizations that Write Occupational Health and Safety Standards, (xxiv) Social Development Partnerships Program - Disability, (xxv) Foreign Credential Recognition Program Loans (pilot project), (xxvi) Fire Prevention Canada, (xxvii) Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program, (xxviii) Canada-European Union Program for Co-operation in Higher Education, Training and Youth (International Academic Mobility Initiative), (xxix) Labour-Management Partnerships Program, (xxx) Social Development Partnerships Program - Children and Families, (xxxi) Social Development Partnerships Program - Disability, (xxxii) Foreign Credential Recognition Program, (xxxiii) International Trade and Labour Program - Technical Assistance and Foreign-Based Cooperative Activities, (xxxiv) International Trade and Labour Program - Consultation and Partnership-Building and Canadian-Based Cooperative Activities, (xxxv) International Trade and Labour Program - International Labour Institutions in which Canada Participates, (xxxvi) Sector Council Program, (xxxvii) Federal Public Sector Youth Internship Program (Youth Employment Strategy), (xxxviii) Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership Program, (xxxix) Employment Programs - Career Development Services Research, (xl) Career Development Services Research (Employment Programs), (xli) Occupational Health and Safety, (xlii) Youth Awareness, (xliii) Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy, (xliv) Homelessness Partnering Strategy, (xlv) Youth Employment Strategy - Skills Link, (xlvi) Youth Employment Strategy - Canada Summer Jobs, (xlvii) Youth Employment Strategy - Career Focus, (xlviii) Youth Employment Strategy - Federal Public Sector Youth Internship Program, (xlix) Apprenticeship Completion Grant, (l) Apprenticeship Incentive Grant, (li) Work-Sharing, (lii) Small Project Component (Enabling Accessibility Fund)?
Q-1922 — October 26, 2011 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the capability of the next generation of fighter jets: (a) what are the mandatory requirements that must be met; (b) how and why (the step-by-step process) were these requirements deemed to be mandatory; (c) on what basis was the determination made that the F-35A was the only aircraft that could meet all of the mandatory requirements; and (d) were there other aircraft considered and, if yes, on what dates and which Department of National Defence divisions were provided with the specifications concerning these other aircraft considered?
Q-1932 — October 26, 2011 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the F-35s, what information was provided to the government about the aircraft’s capabilities indicating that they have the capacity to meet the Canadian Armed Force’s mandatory requirements?
Q-1942 — October 26, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to the National Immunization Strategy (NIS): (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated to the NIS since fiscal year 2003-2004, broken down by year; (b) were all allocated funds spent each year; (c) when did the most recent funding expire; (d) when was funding last renewed; (e) were each of the nine goals of the NIS achieved, and, if not, which goals were not achieved and why; (f) since 2006, have staff of either the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) or Health Canada (HC) met with any professional groups and members of the private sector on the NIS, and, if so, which professional groups and members of the private sector and which staff, broken down by year; (g) were any recommendations made by staff within either the PHAC or HC to the Minister of Health that the NIS be renewed; (h) how many lives are estimated to have been saved by the NIS; (i) how many illnesses are estimated to have been prevented; and (j) has the NIS reduced hospitalizations due to preventable diseases for which Canada has vaccines?
Q-1952 — October 28, 2011 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — With regard to the procurement practices and policies governing the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA): (a) which set of federal laws govern procurement by CATSA; (b) have CATSA’s major screening equipment procurement processes undertaken in 2009 and 2010 been subject to a legal procedure (such as Treasury Board contracting policy); (c) which set of laws or contracting procedures will govern CATSA’s October 2011 procurement for Next-Generation Computed Tomography X-Ray equipment; (d) which government bodies provide oversight for procurement processes conducted by CATSA; (e) what is the overall annual value of procurement carried out by CATSA; (f) what portion of this procurement is tendered; (g) does CATSA maintain conflict of interest policies for its employees and procurements and, if yes, how does CATSA enforce these policies; (h) how do CATSA procurement actions foster competition to ensure best value to the Canadian taxpayer; (i) does CATSA or Transport Canada establish the regulatory requirements and approval processes for security technology; and (j) how many of the checkpoint x-ray systems acquired by CATSA through a sole-source procurement process in 2009 were deployed in British Columbia for the Olympics?
Q-1962 — October 28, 2011 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — With regard to criminal record checks and vulnerable sector checks performed by the Canadian Criminal Real Time Identification Services for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for each year between 2006 and 2011 inclusive: (a) how many applications were processed; (b) what were the average and median processing times for all completed checks, for (i) no fingerprint screening, (ii) paper fingerprint screening when there is a match to a fingerprint holding, (iii) electronic fingerprint screening when there is a match to a fingerprint holding, (iv) paper fingerprint screening when there is no match, (v) electronic fingerprint screening when there is no match; (c) how much funding was allocated by the government for the program; (d) how much funding was collected in user fees; (e) how much funding was used by the program; (f) what are the purposes the clearances are used for; (g) has the government studied the impacts of an increase in the processing time and, if so, what are the results of these studies; (h) what additional information, if any, was required to be collected and analysed compared to the base year of 2006; and (i) which RCMP jurisdictions have digital fingerprint scanners and which do not?
Q-1972 — October 28, 2011 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada funding in the riding of Halifax West for the last five fiscal years: (a) what is the total amount of spending by (i) year, (ii) program; and (b) what is the amount of each spending item by (i) Technical Assistance and Foreign-Based Cooperative Activities (International Trade and Labour Program), (ii) Skills Link (Youth Employment Strategy), (iii) Consultation and Partnership-Building and Canadian-Based Cooperative Activities (International Trade and Labour Program), (iv) Canada Summer Jobs (Youth Employment Strategy), (v) Children and Families (Social Development Partnerships Program), (vi) Labour Market Development Agreements, (vii) Labour Market Agreements, (viii) Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities, (ix) Enabling Fund for Official Language Minority Communities, (x) Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities, (xi) Aboriginal Skills and Training Strategic Investment, (xii) Enabling Accessibility Fund, (xiii) Skills and Partnership Fund - Aboriginal, (xiv) Targeted Initiative for Older Workers, (xv) International Academic Mobility Initiative - Canada-European Union Program for Co-operation in Higher Education, Training and Youth, (xvi) International Academic Mobility Initiative - Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education, (xvii) Surplus Federal Real Property for Homelessness Initiative, (xviii) International Labour Institutions in which Canada Participates (International Trade and Labour Program), (xix) Labour Mobility, (xx) New Horizons for Seniors, (xxi) Career Focus (Youth Employment Strategy), (xxii) Fire Safety Organizations, (xxiii) Organizations that Write Occupational Health and Safety Standards, (xxiv) Social Development Partnerships Program - Disability, (xxv) Foreign Credential Recognition Program Loans (pilot project), (xxvi) Fire Prevention Canada, (xxvii) Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program, (xxviii) Canada-European Union Program for Co-operation in Higher Education, Training and Youth (International Academic Mobility Initiative), (xxix) Labour-Management Partnerships Program, (xxx) Social Development Partnerships Program - Children and Families, (xxxi) Social Development Partnerships Program - Disability, (xxxii) Foreign Credential Recognition Program, (xxxiii) International Trade and Labour Program - Technical Assistance and Foreign-Based Cooperative Activities, (xxxiv) International Trade and Labour Program - Consultation and Partnership-Building and Canadian-Based Cooperative Activities, (xxxv) International Trade and Labour Program - International Labour Institutions in which Canada Participates, (xxxvi) Sector Council Program, (xxxvii) Federal Public Sector Youth Internship Program (Youth Employment Strategy), (xxxviii) Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership Program, (xxxix) Employment Programs - Career Development Services Research, (xl) Career Development Services Research (Employment Programs), (xli) Occupational Health and Safety, (xlii) Youth Awareness, (xliii) Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy, (xliv) Homelessness Partnering Strategy, (xlv) Youth Employment Strategy - Skills Link, (xlvi) Youth Employment Strategy - Canada Summer Jobs, (xlvii) Youth Employment Strategy - Career Focus, (xlviii) Youth Employment Strategy - Federal Public Sector Youth Internship Program, (xlix) Apprenticeship Completion Grant, (l) Apprenticeship Incentive Grant, (li) Work-Sharing, (lii) Small Project Component (Enabling Accessibility Fund)?
Q-1982 — October 31, 2011 — Mr. Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington) — With regard to the National Arts Centre (NAC): (a) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2010-2011, how many complimentary tickets to NAC performances, including, but not limited to, NAC Orchestra, English theatre, French theatre, and dance performances have been given free of charge by the government to Members of Parliament, Senators, Ontario Members of Provincial Parliament, Quebec Members of the National Assembly, elected municipal officials, unelected officials, diplomats and public servants, broken down by category of recipient; and (b) what was the total value of these tickets in each of these fiscal years?
Q-1992 — October 31, 2011 — Mr. Côté (Beauport—Limoilou) — 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 Beauport—Limoilou, identifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?
Q-2002 — October 31, 2011 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With respect to the Canadian Forces (CF): (a) what is the total number of men and women who served in the CF from 2001 to 2011 inclusively; (b) what is the breakdown of CF members who served in the Navy, Airforce, and Land force sections respectively from 2001 to 2011 inclusively; (c) how many members of the CF have been medically released from 2001 to 2011 inclusively; (d) what is the breakdown of CF members who have been medically released within the Navy, Airforce, and Land force sections from 2001 to 2011 inclusively; (e) what are the details on how many members are medically released in the factors comprising the following medical categories (i) visual, (ii) colour, (iii) hearing, (iv) geographical factor, (v) occupational factor, (vi) air factor; (f) how many currently serving CF members are in receipt of a disability pension from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) from 2001 to 2011 inclusively; (g) how many currently serving personnel are in receipt of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) Long Term Disability (LTD) insurance from 2001 to 2011 inclusively; (h) how many medically released CF personnel are in receipt of the SISIP from 2001 to 2011 inclusively; (i) how many medically released CF personnel are in receipt of a disability pension from VAC from 2001 to 2011 inclusively; (j) what is the total number of ex-CF personnel receiving a disability pension from VAC from 2001 to 2011 inclusively; (k) how many members of the CF have been assigned on a temporary basis Medical Employment Limitations from 2001 to 2011 inclusively; and (l) how many members of the CF have been assigned on a permanent basis Medical Employment Limitations from 2001 to 2011 inclusively?
Q-2012 — October 31, 2011 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With respect to the Canadian Forces (CF) Members and Veterans Re-Establishment and Compensation Act (New Veterans Charter): (a) is there a provision for former CF members to access the benefits of a public service dental care plan by paying monthly premiums; (b) has Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) considered providing former CF members access to a public service dental care plan by paying monthly premiums; (c) what would be the projected cost to the government for providing former CF members access to the Public Service Dental Care Plan; (d) has the government considered providing a caregiver or attendant allowance for family members who take care of severely disabled veterans under the New Veterans Charter; (e) has a quality assurance program of various programs within the New Veterans Charter been completed; (f) when does VAC plan to undertake a quality assurance program of various programs under the New Veterans Charter; (g) what is the name of the consortium that is subcontracted to VAC to provide vocational rehabilitation services and components for VAC's broader Rehabilitation Program; (h) what are the names of the businesses or individuals across the country who work with the consortium to deliver vocational rehabilitation services to veterans by province and territory; (i) what is the amount of annual funding provided by VAC to the subcontracted consortium to provide vocational rehabilitation services to CF veterans from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (j) what are the details of how frequently business plans, operating budgets, capital budgets and performance reports are submitted by the consortium to VAC or the Minister; (k) how often does VAC conduct an assurance audit of the vocational rehabilitation services provided by the consortium; (l) when was the last time the government conducted an assurance audit of the vocational rehabilitation services; and (m) when does VAC next plan to conduct an assurance audit of the vocational rehabilitation services provided by the consortium?
Q-2022 — October 31, 2011 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With respect to the Veterans Independence Program (VIP) administered by Veterans Affairs Canada: (a) what is the maximum annual monetary limit that eligible veterans can receive for the following services under the VIP and what is the breakdown of services received by veterans in the following categories from 2006-2011 inclusively for (i) home care services, (ii) grounds maintenance services, (iii) home adaptations, (iv) housekeeping services, (v) social transportation for eligible veterans; (b) how many veterans received VIP services from 2006 to 2011; (c) how many widows of veterans received VIP or the VIP extension from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (d) has VAC considered extending VIP to all veterans who have a demonstrated health need; (e) has VAC considered extending VIP eligibility to all veterans widows or widowers who have a demonstrated health need; (f) has VAC considered extending VIP eligibility to all Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) veterans' and their widows; (g) what are the estimated costs of providing VIP services to RCMP veterans; and (h) what are the estimated costs of providing VIP services to all veterans' widows or widowers?
Q-2032 — October 31, 2011 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With respect to the veterans health care services review undertaken by the government in 2005: (a) was the review cancelled and, if yes, why; (b) what were the total costs of the veterans health care services review; (c) was the health care services review completed; (d) if not, how close was the review to being completed; (e) what are the third party contractors who may have been contracted or sub-contracted to complete the veterans health care services review; (f) what are the draft recommendations from the health care services review; and (g) did Veterans Affairs Canada adopt any of these recommendations from the health care services review?
Q-2042 — October 31, 2011 — Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie) — With regard to the training of Canadian military personnel by the U.S. company Xe Services, formerly known as Blackwater: (a) what is the total value of the contracts awarded to this company by the government in 2011; (b) how many Canadian Land Forces soldiers have been trained by the company since 2005; (c) what type of training did these soldiers receive; (d) how many members of the Special Operations Forces have been trained by this company since 2005; (e) what type of training did the members of the Special Operations Forces receive; and (f) how many contracts were awarded to this company in 2011 and what percentage of these contracts were awarded without a competitive bid process?
Q-2052 — November 1, 2011 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With regard to the Canada Pension Plan: (a) how many claims have been made by individuals who have applied to designate a beneficiary of their survivor pensions from the Canada Pension Plan to someone who is not their spouse or common-law partner; and (b) how many of these claims have been turned down?
Q-2062 — November 2, 2011 — Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou) — With regard to government funding in Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou since fiscal year 2004-2005, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what is the total amount of funding broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) all other government institutions, (iv) program; and (b) how many jobs have been created as a direct result of this government funding, broken down by (i) full-time jobs, (ii) part-time jobs?
Q-2072 — November 2, 2011 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to additional fees or expenses of Deputy Ministers (DM) of government departments, what is the amount of all additional fees or expenses paid on behalf of DMs or for which DMs are reimbursed, including but not limited to (i) memberships or membership discounts for professional associations or other organizations (e.g., bar associations), (ii) club memberships or membership discounts for fitness clubs, golf clubs, social clubs (e.g., The Rideau Club), (iii) season tickets to cultural or sporting events, (iv) access to private health clinics or medical services outside those provided by provincial healthcare systems or by the employer’s group insured benefit plans, (v) professional advisory services for personal matters, such as financial, tax or estate planning, broken down both by individual and by department?
Q-2082 — November 3, 2011 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With respect to the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements announced by the Prime Minister on September 26, 2010, for Hurricane Igor victims in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL): (a) what was the exact financial commitment made to NL; (b) to date, how much money has been transferred to NL; (c) when will the government transfer the remaining funds owed; and (d) what criteria were used in judging applications for assistance as a result of Hurricane Igor?
Q-2092 — November 3, 2011 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With respect to the Marine Atlantic Canadian Forces Appreciation Fare: (a) is there a maximum number of military personnel or veterans that can travel on a particular crossing for free on the Port aux Basques-North Sydney ferry route and the Argentia-North Sydney ferry route, broken down by (i) walk-on passengers, (ii) vehicles; (b) what is the maximum number of military personnel or veterans that can travel on a particular crossing for free on the Port aux Basques-North Sydney ferry route and the Argentia-North Sydney ferry route, broken down by (i) walk-on passengers, (ii) vehicles; (c) has there ever been a maximum number of military personnel or veterans that can travel on a particular crossing for free on the Port aux Basques-North Sydney ferry route and the Argentia-North Sydney ferry route, broken down by (i) walk-on passengers, (ii) vehicles; (d) what is the process for when there is a paying customer and a member of the military's personnel or a veteran who arrive at the same time for the last vehicle place on a vessel; and (e) will the Marine Atlantic Canadian Forces Appreciation Fare be continued in 2012-2013?
Q-2102 — November 3, 2011 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre St. John’s (MRSC St. John’s), operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre Québec (MRSC Québec), operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, and the consolidated Joint Rescue Coordination Centres (JRCC) in Trenton, Ontario or Halifax, Nova Scotia: (a) what is the planned timeline for MRSC St. John’s closure, including dates for (i) termination of operations, (ii) period designated for training, (iii) full operation of JRCC Maritime service, (iv) relocation of MRSC St. John’s employees, (v) new hiring to replace MRSC St. John’s employees refusing relocation; (b) what is the planned timeline for MRSC Québec closure, including dates for (i) termination of operations, (ii) period designated for training, (iii) full operation of JRCC Maritime service, (iv) relocation of MRSC Québec employees, (v) new hiring to replace MRSC Québec employees refusing relocation; (c) how many people were employed by MRSC St. John’s including part-time, full-time and contractual workers, on May 2, 2011; (d) how many of MRSC St. John’s employees have accepted relocation to other government postings to date; (e) how many of MRSC St. John’s employees are expected to relocate to the JRCC, and, of those employees who will relocate to the JRCC, how much relocation compensation will be offered per employee; (f) with respect to the employees of MRSC St. John’s, what were the mandatory qualifications required for hire; (g) with respect to the new hires to replace the services of MRSC St. John’s at the JRCC, what will be the required qualifications; (h) how many people were employed by MRSC Québec, including part-time, full-time and contractual workers, on May 2, 2011; (i) how many of MRSC Québec employees have accepted relocation to other government postings to date; (j) how many of MRSC Québec employees are expected to relocate to the JRCC, and, of those employees who will relocate to the JRCC, how much relocation compensation will be offered per employee; (k) with respect to the employees of MRSC Québec, what were the mandatory qualifications required for hire; (l) with respect to the new hires to replace the services of MRSC Québec at the JRCC, what will be the required qualifications; (m) what research was executed in order to determine that no loss of service would occur with MRSC St. John’s consolidation to the JRCC, and on what date did the relevant research commence; (n) on what date was the initial plan to close MRSC St. John’s discussed within the relevant departments; (o) what research was executed in order to determine that no loss of service would occur with MRSC Québec consolidation to the JRCC, and on what date did the relevant research commence; (p) on what date was the initial plan to close MRSC Québec discussed within the relevant departments; and (q) what is the complete breakdown of the initial investment for the cost to close MRSC St. John’s and MRSC Québec, broken down by region, and how was this figure estimated in terms of (i) allocation for relocation for current employees, (ii) allocation for closure or appropriation of buildings, (iii) new hires, (iv) language training, (v) Maritime Search Planning Courses, (vi) Search and Rescue (SAR) Mission Co-ordinator Courses, (vii) SAR Mobile Facilities or On-Scene Co-ordinator Courses, (viii) other training, (ix) severance packages for current employees, (x) infrastructure renovation or expansion of JRCC Trenton, (xi) infrastructure renovation or expansion of JRCC Halifax, (xii) all other estimated costs associated with consolidation and closure, (xiii) estimated ongoing annual costs with operation of consolidated service?
Q-2112 — November 3, 2011 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to search and rescue response times: (a) what new steps is the government taking to improve search and rescue response times; (b) what new monies are being allocated to improve search and rescue response times; (c) what is the rationale for the separate estimated response times in the day and in the evening, what was the rationale for choosing these times, and what research was done to determine the rationale; and (d) have the separate estimated response times in the day and evening been evaluated and what were the recommendations?
Q-2122 — November 3, 2011 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With respect to executive recruiting firm Odgers Berndtson and the recent selection process for a new Auditor General: (a) who was responsible for selecting the recruiting firm; (b) was there a competition for the contract awarded to the firm and, if yes, what was the nature of the competition; (c) if there was no competition, who suggested or recommended Odgers Berndtson; and (d) what was the total cost incurred by the government in employing Odgers Berndtson to manage the Auditor General selection process?
Q-2132 — November 3, 2011 — Mr. Côté (Beauport—Limoilou) — With regard to the Business Credit Availability Program (BCAP): (a) what is the total amount borrowed from the program for each fiscal year since it was created; (b) how many loans over $250 million dollars were issued; (c) which enterprises or individuals received loans over $250 million dollars; (d) how many loans between $25 million and $250 million dollars were issued; (e) which enterprises or individuals received loans between $25 million and $250 million dollars; (f) which enterprises or individuals received loans less than $25 million dollars; (g) what sum from the whole of BCAP's assets was given out as (i) loans, (ii) grants, (iii) subsidies; (h) what was the form (checks, bank loans, business loans, credit cards, cash) of the BCAP's loans, grants, and subsidies; (i) what were the conditions of acceptance to receive the BCAP program's support; (j) who was deciding on rejecting or accepting businesses into BCAP's loan program; (k) what were the eligibility criteria of BCAP's measures for businesses; (l) was there an evaluation grid of criteria needed for a business or individual to have access to BCAP's helping measures, and, if yes, who was the person or group of persons responsible for taking decisions concerning helping or not helping a business; (m) what is the total number of businesses that were directly helped by the BCAP program; (n) what was the composition of the oversight group managing the BCAP program; (o) were there any private companies involved in the acceptance or rejection process of the BCAP program, and, if yes, what were the names of the individuals that were involved and what were their roles within the BCAP program administration; (p) were there any conditions to receive financing from BCAP program; (q) what was the percentage and sum within the amount of BCAP resources allocated to small businesses (under 100 employees); (r) what was the percentage and sum within the amount of BCAP resources allocated to small businesses (under $500,000 in revenue); (s) what was the percentage and sum within the amount of BCAP resources allocated to small businesses (under $500,000 in revenue and under 100 employees); and (t) was anyone from the private sector consulted to allocate the resources of the BCAP and, if yes, what were their names and what were their roles in the process?
Q-2142 — November 10, 2011 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With regard to the impacts of oil sands development on the health of downstream surrounding First Nations and Métis communities in Fort McKay, Fort Chipewyan, Fort McMurray, Fort Resolution, Fort Fitzgerald, Fort Smith, Fort Simpson and Fort Good Hope: (a) what analysis has Health Canada conducted concerning what would have been, had there been no development of oil sand projects, the expected rates over the past decade in surrounding communities of (i) all forms of cancer, (ii) biliary tract cancer, including cholangiocarcinoma, (iii) colon cancer, (iv) lung cancer, (v) soft tissue sarcoma, (vi) leukemia, (vii) lymphomas; (b) what studies has Health Canada completed concerning the observed rates over the past decade in surrounding communities of (i) all forms of cancer, (ii) biliary tract cancer, including cholangiocarcinoma, (iii) colon cancer, (iv) lung cancer, (v) soft tissue sarcoma, (vi) leukemia, (vii) lymphomas; (c) what studies has Health Canada completed concerning whether over the past decade oil sands development has been exposing, via the land, water, air or wildlife, surrounding communities to toxic substances, including (i) lead, (ii) mercury, (iii) volatile components of petroleum, (iv) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, (v) dioxin-like compounds, (vi) arsenic; (d) what analysis has Health Canada conducted concerning the underlying cause, such as increased detection, chance, lifestyle risk factors or exposure to environmental contaminants, of any discrepancy between the expected and observed rates over the past decade in surrounding communities of (i) all forms of cancer, (ii) biliary tract cancer, including cholangiocarcinoma, (iii) colon cancer, (iv) lung cancer, (v) soft tissue sarcoma, (vi) leukemia, (vii) lymphomas; (e) does Health Canada plan to work with other federal departments, the Government of Alberta, and surrounding First Nations and Métis communities to complete a comprehensive study on the health impacts of oil sands development; (f) does Health Canada plan to work with other federal departments, the Government of Alberta, and surrounding First Nations and Métis communities to identify and implement measures aimed at reducing any health impacts that are discovered in such a study; (g) what is Health Canada’s policy on its responsibility under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act with regard to the health impacts of oil sands development on surrounding communities; and (h) what is the government’s policy on whether napthenic acids, a toxic by-product of oil sands production found in tailings, should be added to the National Pollutant Release Inventory under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?
Q-2152 — November 10, 2011 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With regard to the 2011 official visit by the Right Honourable David Cameron, Prime Minister of Great Britain, which African ambassadors and high commissioners were invited to attend the joint session of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada to listen to the speech given by the aforementioned Prime Minister?
Q-2162 — November 10, 2011 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With regard to refugee claims from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, how many claims were made in (i) 2006, (ii) 2007, (iii) 2008, (iv) 2009, (v) 2010?
Q-2172 — November 10, 2011 — Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With respect to budget cuts at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) which specific directorates and programs are affected and what was the process followed to determine whether or not to make cuts to a specific directorate and program; (b) what, if any, DFO scientists were consulted regarding the considered cuts; (c) what scientists outside of DFO were consulted; (d) for each directorate and program specified in (a), what is the number of current full-time, part-time and contract scientific positions; (e) for each directorate and program specified in (a), what is the number of full-time, part-time and contract scientists who have been given "workforce adjustment" letters; (f) for each directorate and program specified in (a), what is the number of full-time, part-time and contract scientists who are going to be moved out of their current "job functions"; (g) what are all programs run by a single scientist who has been given a "workforce adjustment" letter, and, for each program identified, what, if any, steps have been taken to make sure that the program continues; (h) what process will be followed to place scientists in appropriate research areas; and (i) has the government taken steps to limit the effects of the cuts on scientists whose high level of specialization in a particular field may make finding an appropriate replacement position impossible?
Q-2182 — November 10, 2011 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With respect to Canada’s fleet of submarines, which is comprised of HMCS Victoria, HMCS Windsor, HMCS Chicoutimi, and HMCS Corner Brook: (a) what is the total cost, broken down by vessel, and itemized by categories including maintenance, repairs, staffing, and all others relevant categories for (i) the most recent fiscal year, (ii) since their acquisition; (b) what is the estimated cost that the government anticipates to spend before the fleet is active again, broken down by vessel; (c) what are the dates that the government anticipates each vessel will return to service; and (d) which companies have been contracted to perform work on the vessels in order to return the fleet to operation?
Q-2192 — November 15, 2011 — Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — With regard to fixed-wing observational aircraft owned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), since January 1, 2006: (a) how many aircraft are owned by the RCMP, broken down by the make, model, and age of the aircraft; (b) what are the dates of flights that these aircraft have taken; (c) what is the nature of the observational work these aircraft do; (d) what is the cost of this program, broken down by year; (e) what is the policy the RCMP applies with respect to the use of aircraft for the observation of civilian activity; (f) what is the RCMP policy on the use of aircraft for cellular surveillance; (g) what is the RCMP policy on the use of aircraft for the disruption of cellular signals; and (h) have these aircraft been lent to provinces to assist provincial police forces, and, if so, for each flight, what was or were (i) the flight date, (ii) the province using the aircraft, (iii) the cities in which the aircraft was used, (iv) the cost of each flight, (v) the nature of the flight and observation, (vi) all provincial agreements regarding this?
Q-2202 — November 15, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With respect to Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs): (a) how many individuals per year, over the last ten years, who were issued a TRV have gone on to make a refugee claim; (b) over the last ten years, (i) what have been the ten most common countries of origin of the refugee claimants in (a), (ii) how many refugee claimants have come from each of the ten countries per year; (c) of the refugee claimants mentioned in (a), what is the breakdown in terms of (i) gender, (ii) age; (d) what is the total number of TRVs issued per year over the last ten years; and (e) does the Department of Citizenship and Immigration know how many TRV holders have stayed in Canada beyond the expiry date of their visas in the last ten years and, if so, how many have done so?
Q-2212 — November 15, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With respect to immigration cases conducted through the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP): (a) other than security and medical approval, does the federal government exercise control over any of the criteria applied in the selection of individuals for approval under the program, and, if it does, what are these criteria, what government department enforces these criteria, and where are officials responsible for enforcement located; (b) in the case of a disagreement between a province and a consulate, where does the ultimate authority lie with regard to approval; and (c) once approved by a province, can an application be denied by any federal government body, and, if yes, on what grounds?
Q-2222 — November 15, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With respect to five-year multiple-entry visas: (a) how many visas of this type have been issued in total per year over the last ten years; (b) what is the breakdown in terms of (i) gender, (ii) age; (c) how many have been issued per year to individuals who have a pending application for permanent residence, and what is the breakdown in terms of permanent residency class applied for; and (d) over the last ten years, (i) what have been the ten most common countries of origin for individuals who have received multiple-entry visas, (ii) how many applicants have come from each of the ten countries per year?
Q-2232 — November 15, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to Lyme disease-carrying ticks and Lyme disease in Canada: (a) what percentage of Lyme disease cases are thought to be reported, (i) what percentage of people who receive treatment for Lyme disease develop post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome, (ii) what percentage of people with untreated Lyme disease infections experience intermittent bouts of arthritis, (iii) what percentage of untreated Lyme disease patients are at risk of developing chronic neurological complaints months to years after infection; (b) based on all epidemiological data collected since Lyme disease became a nationally-reportable disease, what is the most recent data available about Lyme disease cases, broken down (i) by province, (ii) by month, (iii) by symptom, (iv) incidence by age and sex; (c) how does the government define a “Lyme-endemic area”, (i) in what specific areas of Canada are ticks endemic and highly endemic, (ii) what areas of Canada have the highest numbers of human infections; (d) what is Lyme disease’s (i) ranking among vector-borne diseases in Canada, (ii) ranking among nationally notifiable diseases; (e) is it possible to have more than one tick-borne infection, and, if so, (i) are possible co-infections being investigated and tracked, (ii) does one’s chance of having multiple tick-borne infections depend on geographic location, and, if so, what areas are particularly at risk, (iii) what is the rate of co-infection by province; (f) broken down by province, over the last 20 years, how has a warming climate impacted Lyme disease, in particular, (i) how has warming impacted tick distribution by province, (ii) how has warming impacted the distribution of Lyme disease by province; (g) what does the government project will be the effect of climate change on (i) the geographical range of ticks in 2020 and 2050, (ii) the distribution of ticks across Canada, (iii) human Lyme disease infections, (iv) the distribution of Lyme disease infections in Canada; (h) how has municipal development changed in tick-endemic areas throughout Canada over the last 20 years, (i) how have these changes brought humans in contact with ticks, (ii) how has development impacted the distribution of the disease, (iii) what are the government’s projections concerning how development will change over the next 40 years, (iv) what are the government’s projections concerning how development will impact the spread of Lyme disease over the next 40 years; (i) what are Health Canada’s recommended treatment guidelines for Lyme disease, and what was the process used to develop them; (j) what tests does Health Canada recommend for diagnosing cases of Lyme disease, (i) what is the percentage accuracy of the recommended tests at each stage of disease, namely, when a patient has an erythema migrans rash, when a patient is in the early disseminated stage (days to weeks post-tick bite), and when a person is in the late disseminated stage (months to years post-tick bite), (ii) what tests for diagnosing Lyme disease are available and recommended in Canada during each of the above-mentioned stages of the disease, (iii) can patients be treated based solely on their symptoms or must they have had positive test results; (k) is the government aware of any organization that recommends physicians who are familiar with diagnosing and treating Lyme disease, and, if so, where can this information be accessed; (l) what percentage of patients with Lyme disease respond well to antibiotics, (i) what percentage of patients with Lyme disease experience fatigue, muscle aches, sleep disturbance, or difficulty thinking even after completing a recommended course of antibiotic treatment, (ii) what research has been undertaken regarding the benefits and risks of a longer course of antibiotics, (iii) what are Health Canada’s recommendations concerning a longer course of antibiotics, (iv) what follow-up has Health Canada undertaken to ensure that patients have access to a longer course of antibiotic treatment if required; (m) what, if any, recommendations does Health Canada make concerning those who suffer post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome; (n) what, if any, resources does Health Canada provide to clinicians regarding diagnosis, treatment, and testing; (o) what, if any, resources does Health Canada provide to clinicians for continuing medical education on the topic of Lyme disease; (p) what, if any, case definition and report forms does Health Canada make available concerning Lyme disease, and when were each of these forms last updated by Health Canada; (q) what specific actions are Health Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research undertaking regarding prevention of Lyme disease, including, but not limited to, (i) programs of research, (ii) programs of service, (iii) education programs for the public and healthcare providers; (r) what resources have been provided to each initiative identified in response to (q); (s) what, if anything, is Health Canada doing with national surveillance data regarding Lyme disease, in particular, (i) what is it doing to maintain such data, (ii) what is it doing to analyze such data, (iii) what resources has it allocated to such activities; (t) in what, if any, epidemiologic investigations is the government currently involved, in any capacity, including that of funding, (i) what resources is the government providing for any such study; (u) what, if any, diagnostic and reference laboratory services does the government provide in relation to Lyme disease, (i) what financial resources are provided for any such services; (v) what, if any, steps is Health Canada and the Canadian Institute for Health Research taking to develop and test strategies for the control and prevention of Lyme disease in humans; and (w) what, if any, information does Health Canada provide to pregnant mothers about Lyme disease?
Q-2242 — November 15, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to development of the oil sands, and its impacts on Aboriginal communities: (a) what are all the studies, along with their dates and results, undertaken by the government concerning the (i) possible impacts of the oil sands industry on land, water, and wildlife, (ii) potential impacts on Aboriginal livelihoods, inherent and treaty rights, and constitutional rights; (b) which government accommodation and consultation policies regarding the oil sands have been designed in partnership with Aboriginal peoples to ensure that free, prior and informed consent is obtained, and how does the government ensure that consultation policies are (i) designed in partnership with Aboriginal peoples, (ii) consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; (c) what are all consultations, including the dates of the consultations and those present, undertaken by the government with Aboriginal peoples, where there was consideration given to oil sands-related activities that might impact Section 35 rights, and what were the results or conclusions of these consultations; (d) does the government ensure that consultation with Aboriginal peoples occurs early in the decision-making process as related to the development of the oil sands and, if so, how does it do this; (e) what are all consultations with Aboriginal peoples which occurred early in the decision-making process as related to the development of the oil sands, and for each such consultation, how does it meet the government’s criteria for “early consultation”; (f) what are all legal challenges that have been undertaken or are being undertaken by First Nations communities against the government as related to the oil sands, and what is the stated reason for each challenge; (g) what are the studies, along with their dates and results, undertaken by the government concerning the possible impacts of legal challenges by First Nations communities on the oil sands industry; (h) which, if any, First Nations communities have asked for a full public inquiry into the impact of oil sands development and what are (i) the reasons provided for each such request, (ii) the projected cost of such an inquiry, (iii) the steps taken by the government to address each identified concern as outlined in (h)(i); (i) does the federal government plan to ensure that development in the oil sands region is consistent with the constitutionally-protected rights of Aboriginal peoples and the internationally-accepted doctrine of free, prior, and informed consent, and (i) other than actions referenced in the responses to parts (a) through (h), what federal decisions have been taken and what federal policies or programs have been developed taking into account Aboriginal peoples’ constitutionally-protected rights; and (j) what, if any, studies has the government funded to ensure that Aboriginal communities impacted or potentially impacted by the oil sands have the resources to direct their own baseline health studies and environmental monitoring programs?
Q-2252 — November 16, 2011 — Ms. Perreault (Montcalm) — With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund: (a) how many applications were successful and received funding under this program, and how many applications were rejected through calls for proposals, since the start of the program; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by province and federal electoral district, through calls for proposals since the start of the program; (c) what is the total cost of administering the program thus far for each year since the start of the program; (d) how much funding is left; (e) how many major projects under this program will go to or went to expanding existing centres; (f) what is the value of the successful major projects applications that went to (i) the construction of new centres, (ii) the expanding of existing centres; (g) how many of the successful Mid-Sized Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund applications went to (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; (h) what is the value of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund applications that went to (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; (i) what is the reason most often given for rejecting an application; (j) what are the reasons given for rejecting an application and what is the frequency of each reason; (k) will the program be renewed next year; and (l) when will the next call for proposals be issued?
Q-2262 — November 16, 2011 — Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria) — With regard to the Canadian International Development Agency’s spending on the delivery of vaccines and immunizations through Canada's official development assistance: (a) what are Canada’s current and future financial commitments on vaccines and immunizations from all branches, projects and programs within CIDA, including bilateral, multilateral, and geographic/partnership branch, broken down by individual commitment; (b) what specific current or future immunizations or vaccines programs or projects, broken down by recipient country and CIDA stream of funding with associated funding amounts, are related to the roll-out of the Muskoka Initiative; and (c) when has the monitoring and evaluation of Canada’s immunizations and vaccines programs as promised by the Prime Minister during the 2010 Muskoka G8 taken place or when will it take place and will it be under the auspices of the United Nations Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health?
Q-2272 — November 17, 2011 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With respect to the last hiring process that took place for the position of Director General, Regional Operations for Prince Edward Island (PEI) (Mr. Kevin MacAdam) at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA): (a) when was the job position posted; (b) where was the position posted (i.e., website, newspapers, etc.); (c) for how long was the position posted in each medium; (d) was it an external or internal posting; (e) what information appeared in each posting medium; (f) who specifically developed and approved the job posting qualifications; (g) was this a newly created position, and, if not, what information appeared on the posting for the previous compeition for the position (i.e., that of Mr. MacAdam's predecessor); (h) what was the job description for this position prior to the last hiring process; (i) what is the current job description, if it is different from the description in (h); (j) what is the pay scale for this position; (k) has the pay scale for this position changed with the new hiring of Mr. MacAdam; (l) what were the French-language requirements (i.e., levels of proficiency A, B, or C) for this job when it was originally posted; (m) have the French-language requirements (i.e., levels of proficiency A, B, or C) changed with the latest hiring process for this position; (n) is there a Director General, Regional Operations position in ACOA for each of the other three Atlantic provinces (i.e., New Brunswick (NB), Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), and Nova Scotia (NS)), and, if yes, what is, for each position, (i) the pay scale, (ii) the job description, (iii) the French-language requirements (i.e., levels of proficiency A, B, or C); (o) are there any positions with ACOA for which bilingualism is a requirement to be hired, and, if so, what are they; (p) in the last five years, in how many cases and for which positions have newly hired ACOA employees started their employment by being required to receive full-time French training; (q) does ACOA utilize any language training facilities in PEI, NL, NB or NS for employee French-language training, and, if so, which ones; (r) how many ACOA employees have received second-language training in each of the last five years; (s) what was the average length of second-language training over last five years; (t) what was the average cost for second-language training per employee in 2010-2011; (u) what is the expected budgeted cost of second-language training for the current Director General, Regional Operations for PEI (Mr. Kevin MacAdam), broken down by specific cost categories (e.g., tuition, travel, accommodations, meals, books, incidentals, etc.); (v) what is the duration of French-language training that Mr. MacAdam is required to take, broken down by (i) months, (ii) hours; (w) what levels of French-language proficiency (A, B, or C) must Mr. MacAdam achieve; (x) is Mr. MacAdam receiving his full salary during his French-language training, and, if not, how much is he being paid during this period; and (y) what is ACOA’s policy on the second-language training of its employees in terms of (i) effects on trainees' salaries, (ii) special compensation or benefits available to trainees during second language training, (iii) requirements to perform work duties, if any, during second-language training?
Q-2282 — November 17, 2011 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to the new federal regulations on water treatment systems, issued by Environment Canada, to be implemented in November 2011: (a) what is the estimated cost, separately, for each municipality and province affected by the need to upgrade infrastructure to meet the new requirements; and (b) how much funding has been committed by the federal government to help contribute to the upgrades in the jurisdictions of (i) St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) Montreal, Québec, (iv) Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, (v) Victoria, British Columbia, (vi) Vancouver, British Columbia, (vii) Sydney, Nova Scotia, (viii) Saint John, New Brunswick, (ix) Thunder Bay, Ontario, (x) Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, (xi) Ottawa, Ontario?
Q-2292 — November 17, 2011 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to the new federal regulations on tolerance of fecal matter in areas where shellfish are, as issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what is the estimated cost, separately, for each municipality and province affected by the need to upgrade infrastructure to address the new requirements; (b) how much funding has been committed by the federal government to help contribute to the upgrades in the jurisdictions of (i) St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) Montreal, Québec, (iv) Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, (v) Victoria, British Columbia, (vi) Vancouver, British Columbia, (vii) Sydney, Nova Scotia, (viii) Saint John, New Brunswick, (ix) Thunder Bay, Ontario, (x) Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, (xi) Ottawa, Ontario; (c) how many times since the new federal regulations took effect have the fishing areas in the above-mentioned jurisdictions been shut down due to fecal matter contamination exceeding the acceptable limits; and (d) what is the estimated economic impact on local fishers of the new federal regulations in the jurisdictions of (i) St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) Montreal, Québec, (iv) Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, (v) Victoria, British Columbia, (vi) Vancouver, British Columbia, (vii) Sydney, Nova Scotia, (viii) Saint John, New Brunswick, (ix) Thunder Bay, Ontario, (x) Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, (xi) Ottawa, Ontario?
Q-2302 — November 18, 2011 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the government’s role in monitoring and regulating arms exports: (a) on what date will the government table in Parliament or otherwise release a report on the export of military goods from Canada for 2010; (b) in its next report, will the government provide a level of detail similar to that provided in the Annual Report of 2002 and, in particular, will it provide information similar in nature to that contained in the 2002 report’s “Table 3: Exports of Military Goods by Destination Country and Component Category”; (c) what is the value and type of all exports of weapons systems and munitions from 2003-2010, broken down by year, for each recipient state; (d) what is the value and type of all exports of military support systems from 2003-2010, broken down by year, for each recipient state; (e) what is the value and type of all exports of military parts from 2003-2010, broken down by year, for each recipient state; (f) what is the value and type of all exports of parts not officially designated as “military parts” that were destined for a known military purpose from 2003-2010, broken down by year, for each recipient state; (g) what is the value of export permits for Export Control List (ECL) Group 2 items authorized from 2003-2010, broken down by year, for each recipient state; (h) what is the value of export permits for ECL Group 2 items denied from 2003-2010, broken down by year, for each recipient state; (i) what is the value of export permits authorized and exports made for prohibited firearms for the United States from 2003-2010, broken down by year; (j) what is the value of export permits authorized and exports made for ECL Group 1 items from 2003-2010, broken down by year, for each recipient state; (k) what is the government’s position on the negotiation of an international Arms Trade Treaty that would establish common standards for the national authorization of conventional weapons transfers; (l) how does the government define “sporting and hunting firearms” in both domestic and international law as it would apply in the Arms Trade Treaty; (m) will Canada withdraw its proposed exemption to exclude sporting and hunting firearms for recreational use from the Arms Trade Treaty; (n) what is the relationship between the Canadian Sports Shooters Association and the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs; (o) how many meetings have been held between Steve Torino and Minister John Baird or Minister Baird’s staff; (p) how many meetings were held between DFAIT officials and the Canadian Sports Shooters Association prior to the last round of negotiations for the Arms Trade Treaty; (q) on what date did DFAIT change its position on the Arms Trade Treaty with respect to “sporting and hunting firearms”; (r) what is the government’s position on the Global Investor Statement on the Arms Trade Treaty; (s) what is the government’s official position on the Organization of American States Firearms Convention; and (t) will the government ratify the Organization of American States Firearms Convention?
Q-2312 — November 18, 2011 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With regard to the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act (Statutes of Canada 2010, Chapter 18) (Bill C-3, 40th Parliament, Third Session): (a) how many individuals have applied for Indian Status specifically as a result of the passage of Bill C-3, and how many of these applicants have been deemed (i) eligible for registration, (ii) ineligible for registration, (iii) are awaiting a ruling by the Indian Registrar as to their eligibility for Indian status under the legislation; (b) how many additional employees have been hired by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to expedite the processing of applications made as a result of the passage of Bill C-3; (c) what has been the average time required to complete the processing of applications made as a result of the passage of Bill C-3; (d) how does the number of applications received compare to the department’s estimate that 45,000 individuals would be added to the Indian Register as a result of Bill C-3; (e) since January 31, 2011, has the department revised or considered revising its estimates about the number of Bill C-3 registrants; (f) what is the breakdown by First Nation of newly eligible Bill C-3 registrants; (g) what were the conclusions and recommendations of the Internal Financial Impacts Working Group established in March 2010 to determine the cost implications of adding approximately 45,000 individuals to the Indian Register; (h) what is the department’s response to the report of the Internal Financial Impacts Working Group; and (i) has the department committed, or does it plan to commit, any additional resources to program spending or contributions and grants to First Nation governments due to the addition of new individuals to the Indian Register?
Q-2322 — November 18, 2011 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With regard to the Federal Review Panel appointed by the Minister of the Environment in 2009, in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to conduct a review of the environmental effects of Taseko Mines Limited’s proposed Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Regional District of British Columbia: (a) what was the total cost of the assessment of the original Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine project, the findings of which were published by the Federal Review Panel on July 2, 2010; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the assessment to be conducted on the new Prosperity Mine, which was announced by the Minister of the Environment on November 7, 2011?
Q-2332 — November 21, 2011 — Mr. Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine) — With regard to the government's involvement in private, medically-supervised detoxification treatment for First Nations, Inuit and Métis for each of the last ten years: (a) how many patients were referred to private services, by province and year, for treatment related to (i) solvents and inhalants, (ii) illegal drugs, (iii) prescription drugs, (iv) alcohol, (v) other; (b) what was the total cost for these services by (i) year, (ii) province; (c) what government departments and agencies have funded these services, and what was the cost for each such department and agency by (i) year, (ii) province; and (d) what government departments and agencies have referred clients or patients to these services by (i) year, (ii) province?
Q-2342 — November 21, 2011 — Mr. Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine) — With regard to federal involvement in drug and alcohol treatment programs for First Nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada for each of the last ten years: (a) how many patients were referred to the following types of treatment centres, by province and by year, (i) outpatient treatment centres, (ii) inpatient treatment centres, (iii) outpatient/inpatient treatment centres, (iv) family treatment centres, (v) solvent abuse treatment centres, (vi) treatment centres serving youth; (b) what was the total cost to the government for these services by (i) year, (ii) province; (c) what government organizations have funded these services by (i) year, (ii) province; and (d) what government organizations have referred clients or patients to these services by (i) year, (ii) province?
Q-2352 — November 21, 2011 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With respect to Western Economic Diversification (WED) Canada, for fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 (inclusive), what are the total authorities used on the following programs and activities, including authorities granted by statutes other than Appropriation Acts, broken down by individual budget categories or subcategories: (a) community economic development, (i) initiatives to facilitate economic recovery from depressed economic circumstances, (ii) initiatives designed to foster community growth and economic development, (iii) investments in community infrastructure; (b) innovation, (i) knowledge infrastructure, (ii) basic and applied research and development, (iii) personnel, (iv) investments to improve access to adequate patient financing, (v) technology commercialization facilities, (vi) support systems and mechanisms to link those elements to each other; (c) business development, (i) initiatives to enhance business productivity and competitiveness, (ii) initiatives to support trade and investment attraction and penetration of western Canadian technologies, services and value-added products into international markets, (iii) initiatives in priority sectors to introduce new products, technologies, or innovations to existing production and processes, (iv) programs and services designed to improve access to risk capital and business services for entrepreneurs and small businesses; (d) policy, advocacy, and coordination, (i) initiatives to advocate for Western Canada in national policy discussions, (ii) leading federal and intergovernmental collaboration, (iii) research and analysis to inform policy and program decisions; (e) internal services, (i) management and oversight services, (ii) communications services, (iii) legal services, (iv) human resources management services, (v) financial management services, (vi) information management services, (vii) information technology services, (viii) real property services, (ix) materiel services, (x) acquisition services, (xi) travel and other administrative services; and (f) any other general categories or sub-categories of the above used in WED’s own management and accountability of its programs?
Q-2362 — November 21, 2011 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to injuries and fatalities attributed to firearms in British Columbia: (a) for each year from 2001 to 2010 (inclusive), what are the number of injuries and what are the number of fatalities attributed to firearms in British Columbia in each category of non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearms and any firearm prescribed under the Criminal Code and associated regulations (including long guns); and (b) what number of the injuries and fatalities in (a) involved (i) suicides, (ii) accidents, (iii) incidents involving domestic violence, (iv) incidents involving women as victims, (v) incidents involving Aboriginal Canadians as victims?
Q-2372 — November 21, 2011 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With respect to Canada’s Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative, what are the total authorities used in any and all federal programs and activities for fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 (inclusive), including authorities granted by statutes other than Appropriation Acts and any partner or other government contributions in support of the initiative, broken down by specific initiative, including (i) the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat, (ii) the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Transportation Infrastructure Fund, (iii) the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative Research Consortium, (iv) Canadian Tourism Commission marketing and sales programs focused in the Asia-Pacific, (v) any other government programs or activities that are part of this initiative?
Q-2382 — November 21, 2011 — Mr. Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon) — With regard to The Highland Companies’ proposed limestone quarry to be located in Melancthon Township, Dufferin County, Ontario: (a) with which departments has the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency communicated in any way concerning a possible environmental assessment on this proposed project and what were the specific subjects of these communications; (b) what was the specific nature of any communication between the Minister of the Environment or his office and other federal departments or agencies, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, on this matter; (c) what specific information does the government currently possess that contributes to its determination that a federal environmental assessment is not required; (d) what communication has the federal government or its agencies had with the Government of Ontario or its agencies on this matter; and (e) what communication has the government or its agencies had with the project proponent, its parent companies or its subsidiaries on this matter?
Q-2392 — November 21, 2011 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With respect to Employment Insurance (EI) Processing Centres and EI Call Centres: (a) what was the statistical median and mode for EI application processing times, nationally and broken down by province, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (b) what is the total number and percentage of EI claim applications, nationally and broken down by province, that did not get paid within 28 days, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (c) for the claim applications that take longer than 28 days to process, what is the statistical average, median and mode number of days, nationally and broken down by province, that it takes for payment to occur, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (d) what was the percentage of automation achieved in EI processing, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (e) what was the number of EI processing staff, nationally and broken down by province, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (f) what is the bonus or incentive structure concerning EI application processing times achieved, for (i) workers, (ii) management; (g) for EI application claims that take longer than 28 days to process, is there a bonus or incentives structure to encourage that the application be processed as quickly as possible, for (i) workers, (ii) management; (h) what are the service standard policies for claims that take longer than 28 days to process; (i) have the service level standards for EI claims processing changed in the last six years, and, if so, (i) when, (ii) why; (j) what was the average EI processing worker salary, nationally and broken down by province, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (k) what was the total EI processing worker salary cost, nationally and broken down by province, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (l) what was the total number of EI Call Centre staff, nationally and in each province, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (m) have the service level standards for EI Call Centre call backs changed in the last six years, and, if so, (i) when, (ii) why; (n) why did the National Service Level for Access II calls answered within 180 seconds change from 95% to 80% in 2008 at EI Call Centres; (o) what is the EI Call Centre agent Occupancy measure and what is the government's rationale for this measure; (p) what has been the EI Call Centre agent Occupancy target and result, nationally and broken down by province, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (q) what was the target for EI Call Centre High Volume Targets for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (r) what was the total cost associated with training new EI Call Centre workers, broken down by province, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (s) what is the average speed of answer for EI Call Centre calls, broken down by EI Call Centre, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; and (t) what is the abandonment rate for calls at EI Call Centres, nationally and broken down by EI Call Centre, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date?
Q-2402 — November 22, 2011 — Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie) — With regard to the issuance of visas for foreign students studying in Canada: (a) does the student’s country of origin affect what type of visa can be issued (that is, a single-entry or a multiple-entry visa); (b) what are the countries of origin of students who are eligible for single-entry visas but not multiple-entry visas; and (c) students from which countries of origin are eligible for both types of visa?
Q-2412 — November 22, 2011 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With respect to Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) call centres: (a) for CPP/OAS Call Centre Access I calls, what is (i) the service level standard, (ii) the corresponding results achieved, broken down by CPP/OAS call centre, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (b) for CPP/OAS Call Centre Access II calls, what is (i) the service level standard, (ii) the corresponding results achieved, broken down by CPP/OAS call centre, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (c) if the National Service Level standard for Access II calls at CPP/OAS call centres changed in the last six years, what was the reasoning for the change; (d) what has been the CPP/OAS Call Centre agent Occupancy target and result, broken down by CPP/OAS call centre, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (e) for CPP/OAS Call Centre High Volume Messages (i) what is the service level standard, (ii) what are the corresponding results achieved, broken down by CPP/OAS call centre, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (f) what was (i) the total number of calls received by CPP/OAS call centres, (ii) the total number of CPP/OAS Call Centre Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Busy calls, broken down by CPP/OAS call centre, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (g) have the service level standards for CPP/OAS call centre call-backs changed in the last six years, and, if so, (i) when, (ii) why; (h) what was the total number of CPP/OAS call centre staff, nationally and in each province, in the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; (i) what was the staff turnover at CPP/OAS call centres, broken down by province, in the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date; and (j) what was the total cost associated with training new CPP/OAS call centre workers, broken down by province, in the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011 to date?

2 Response requested within 45 days