Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 31
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 1345--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to Budget 2012: (a) how many full-time equivalent (FTE) positions has Parks Canada eliminated of the approximately 500 FTEs that existed in the Parks Canada Service Centers before the remaining positions were transferred to other parts of the Parks Canada organization; (b) how many of the FTE reductions have been charged against the Strategic and Operating Review reductions announced in Budget 2012; (c) if Budget 2012 reductions included vacant positions, what are the number, title, group and level of each of the positions that existed in Parks Canada Service Centers before reductions were announced or implemented; (d) what is the number, title, group and level of each of the positions that have been eliminated; and (e) what is the number, title, group and level of those positions that were transferred to other Parks Canada organizational units as a result of elimination of the Service Centers?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as announced in budget 2012, Parks Canada is consolidating and streamlining its service centres and national office as part of its efforts to help reduce the federal deficit. These efforts will improve internal efficiencies and reduce costs while allowing Parks Canada to continue to respect its core mandate and offer Canadians the quality services they expect. In addition to budget 2012, Parks Canada has also had to absorb increases to salaries and inflationary operational costs announced in budget 2010.
Parks Canada sites play a key economic development role in more than 400 communities across the country. National parks, national marine conservation areas and national historic sites are entering another exciting season and are looking forward to welcoming visitors from across the country and from around the world with a full complement of services to discover these special places at their best.
Parks Canada continues to tell the stories that are important to our national identity, manage species at risk, provide meaningful experiences that promote an understanding and appreciation of Canada and support communities through tourism, as it has done for the last 100 years.

Question No. 1347--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the Canadian Forces (CF), what is the number of CF members, both Regular and Reserves, which have been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD during calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012, broken down by rank and base of affectation?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the most accurate information on post-traumatic stress disorder and other operational stress injuries is based on a recent study that examined the cumulative incidence of these illnesses attributable to deployment in Afghanistan. The study group included all Canadian Armed Forces members enrolled in the regular or primary reserve forces who returned from deployment of any duration in support of the mission in Afghanistan between October 1, 2001, and December 31, 2008. The Canadian Armed Forces identified 30,518 such personnel and examined the medical records of a random sample group of 2,045 personnel. Information available based on this recent study by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces indicates that 8% of the entire cohort was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder related to Afghanistan. As indicated above, this is based on a sample of Canadian Armed Forces members who deployed in Afghanistan and not a representation of the overall situation in the CAF as a whole.
The Canadian Armed Forces are currently conducting studies to further develop their understanding of the impact of operational stress injuries on their members, including those who deployed to Afghanistan, and on mental health among Canadian Armed Forces members more generally. These studies are ongoing and their results are not yet available.

Question No. 1348--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, since August 1, 2012, how many access to information requests have been received and of those, how many (i) were completed within 30 days, (ii) were extended for 30 days, (iii) were extended for 60 days, (iv) were extended for 90 days, (v) were extended for more than 90 days, (vi) missed the deadline to provide the requested information?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there were 286 access to information requests received since August 1, 2012. Please note that some requests have been extended for periods other than 30, 60 or 90 days. Others are still open or have not missed the deadline, so these numbers may not be captured in responses (i) through (vi). In addition, some requests that may have been extended by 30, 60 and 90 days may have also missed the deadline, so these would be reflected twice in the metrics.
Of the 286 access to information requests received, with respect to (i), 104 were completed within 30 days. With respect to (ii), two requests were extended for 30 days; this includes a total of 1125 pages released. With respect to (iii), 66 requests were extended for 60 days; this includes a total of 5648 pages released. With respect to (iv), 13 requests were extended for 90 days; this includes a total of 6494 pages released. With respect to (v), 20 requests were extended for more than 90 days; this includes a total of 50 717 pages released. With respect to (vi), 85 requests missed the deadlines, this could be for a number of reasons, including the volume and complexity of the requests, a requirement to conduct external consultations and the overall workload.

Question No. 1350--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND), what are the details of all contracts for consulting services or advice purchased by the department during fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, including the name of the consultant, the nature of their services, their location, the amount paid, the file or reference number of the contracts, the file or reference number of any reports prepared by the consultant, and was the consultant a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces or a former civil servant within DND?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces do not possess a central database containing all the contract data requested in this question. The authority to issue contracts resides with more than 20 organizations within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, each of which retains the contracts that it has issued. A manual search of the estimated several thousand contract records from 2010-11 and 2011-12 would be the only method to obtain the requested detailed information. Information regarding whether a consultant was a former civil servant within the Department of National Defence or a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces is in many cases not readily available even through a manual contract search, and would require some organizations to contact the consulting companies directly. It is estimated that the research required to respond to this question could take at least six months of full-time work for several officials. Therefore, a response cannot reasonably be produced for this question. However, in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat’s policy on contracting with former public servants, the Department of National Defence is undertaking efforts to improve, as expeditiously as possible, the data integrity of the system in place to track contracts with former public servants.

Question No. 1352--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the cost of post-secondary education paid for by the Department of National Defence, for all currently serving Deputy Judge-Advocate Generals: (a) what is the date of their nominations to the position of Deputy Judge-Advocate General; and (b) what are the direct and indirect costs paid for, including but not limited to (i) allowances of all types, (ii) travel and moving expenses for them and their families, (iii) salaries, (iv) reimbursement of the costs for academic books and materials, (v) the degrees obtained, (vi) tuition and academic fees?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there are currently five serving Deputy Judge Advocates General in the regular force. To protect their privacy, their names were not included in the response. The dates of nomination for these Deputy Judge Advocates General were as follows: Deputy Judge Advocate General 1: September 4, 2009; Deputy Judge Advocate General 2: July 1, 2011; Deputy Judge Advocate General 3: August 2, 2005; Deputy Judge Advocate General 4: May 4, 2012; Deputy Judge Advocate General 5: August 13, 2010.
With regard to (b), these responses do not include post-secondary education provided at the Royal Military Colleges in Saint Jean and Kingston, as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces own these institutions and do not reimburse any of the costs associated with the degrees obtained there.
With regard to (b)(i), information concerning allowances could not be generated within the allocated time.
With regard to (b)(ii), information concerning travel and moving expenses could not be generated within the allocated time.
With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 1, the salary range is $62,635 - $87,710; reimbursement of the costs for academic books and materials was $435; degree obtained was Master of Laws, LL.M., in legislative drafting, 1998; tuition and academic fees were $6,074.
With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 2, the salary range was $42,096 - $55,632; costs for academic books and materials were included in tuition and academic fees; degree obtained was Bachelor of Laws, LL.B., 1994; tuition and academic fees were $12,148. With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 2 as well, the salary range is $134,484 - $142,920; reimbursement of the costs for academic books and materials was $2,827; degree obtained was Master of Law, LL.M., in international law, 2007; tuition and academic fees were $26,938.
With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 3, salary range was $42,096 - $55,632; information on costs for reimbursement of academic books and materials could not be generated within the allocated time; degree obtained was Bachelor of Law, LL.B., 1993; information on tuition and academic fees could not be generated within the allocated time. With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 3 as well, salary range is $131,460 - $139,704; reimbursement of the costs for academic books and materials was $2,471; degree obtained was Master of Law, LL.M., in air and space Law, 2006; tuition and academic fees were $8,010.
With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 4, the question is not applicable.
With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 5, salary range is $138,552 - $147,240; reimbursement of the costs for academic books and materials was $2,024; degree obtained was Master of Law, LL.M., in international law, 2009; tuition and academic fees were $50,311.

Question No. 1355--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the latest edition of the Department of National Defence’s Investment Plan, what is contained within the current list of investments, including (i) description of the investment, (ii) expected costs, (iii) timeline for completion, (iv) current status of each investment?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the latest edition of the Department of National Defence’s investment plan is considered cabinet confidence. Neither the document nor extracts from it will be released.
Detailed information on defence investments has been reported in reports on plans and priorities and departmental performance reports, which can be found at the following links: for the report on plans and priorities 2013-14, http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/sites/internet-eng.aspx?page=15184; for the departmental performance report 2011-12, http://www.vcds-vcemd.forces.gc.ca/sites/internet-eng.aspx?page=14493.

Question No. 1356--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the ex gratia payments to Canadian Forces members in relation to the Home Equity Assistance (HEA) provisions: (a) how many members received a payment; (b) what is the rank of each recipient; and (c) what is the date and amount for each ex gratia payment that was made by the Department of Justice, Office of the Department of National Defence Canadian Forces Legal Authority, concerning HEA provisions, as governed by the Department of National Defence HEA, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2013?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces searched their records and found no instances of ex gratia payments to Canadian Armed Forces members in relation to the home equity assistance provisions between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2013.

Question No. 1357--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the Canadian Forces Medical Service and the treatment of ill and injured Canadian Forces personnel, between 2000-2012, what is: (a) the total number of members who were prescribed opioid narcotics for pain management; (b) the total amount spent on opioid narcotic drugs during this time; (c) the total number of Canadian Forces members treated for opioid narcotic drug abuse; (d) the number of Canadian Forces members that have been released from the military due to opioid narcotic drug abuse; and (e) which treatment methods are used to aid in the recovery of Canadian Forces members with opioid narcotic drug addiction?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b) and (c), the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces do not maintain a central database to track information related to the prescription of opioid drugs to Canadian Armed Forces members. It is not possible to produce a response in the time available, as this would require a manual search of medical files of all Canadian Armed Forces members who have served during the time period.
With regard to (d), Canadian Armed Forces personnel are not released for drug abuse. Personnel may be released as a result of a violation of the Canadian Forces drug control program, and this may involve the use of opiates. Between 2000 and 2012, eight members were released in relation to opiates under the Canadian Forces drug control program.
With regard to (e), all Canadian Armed Forces members diagnosed with substance abuse problems will be assessed for any underlying medical conditions, such as chronic pain, etc., and offered the appropriate level of treatment, including the opportunity to undergo a residential treatment program for substance abuse.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 1343--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund, since its creation: (a) what is the total amount awarded by all regional development agencies; (b) for each agency, how many applications were received and, of that number, how many applications were refused; (c) what was the selection criteria; and (d) for each agency, how many projects were funded and, for each project funded or refused by the Fund, what was the type of community infrastructure (based on the definitions of eligible infrastructure), the amount awarded or refused and the name and place (city, province) of the applicant organization?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1344--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit: (a) how much has this credit cost the government for each fiscal year since its introduction; and (b) how many Canadians have claimed this tax credit by household type, by income bracket and by province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1349--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, in each year since 2006 inclusive, what has been the number of: (a) harassment complaints other than that of a sexual nature; (b) sexual harassment complaints; and (c) harassment investigations, broken down by the following locations (i) Department of National Defence (DND)/Canadian Forces (CF) establishments located in the National Capital Region, including NDHQ, (ii) Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Halifax, (iii) CFB Cornwallis, (iv) CFB Gagetown, (v) CFB Valcartier, (vi) CFB Kingston (not including the Royal Military College), (vii) CFB Petawawa, (viii) CFB Borden, (ix) CFB Shilo, (x) CFB Edmonton, (xi) CFB Comox, (xii) CFB Esquimalt, (xiii) Royal Military College (Kingston), (xiv) Royal Military College (St-Jean)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1351--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND), what is the detailed breakdown of: (a) Canadian Armed Forces executives by rank (General, Lieutenant-General, Major-General and Brigadier-General); and (b) DND executives by classification (DM-4, DM-3, DM-2, DM-1, EX-5, EX-4, EX-3, EX-2 and EX-1), on December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2012?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1353--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND): (a) what are the ranks of each Canadian Armed Forces member and classification of each DND employee who, on December 31, 2012, attended post-graduate training at public expense at a Canadian or international educational institution; and (b) for each, what is (i) the actual yearly salary of the student, (ii) the program of study, (iii) the number of semesters of study paid for by the government since the start of their career, (iv) all the institutions attended, (v) the total cost of tuition paid with respect to the student’s training, (vi) whether relocation costs were paid with respect to the training and the amount of those costs, (vii) any other associated costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1354--
Mr. Yvon Godin:
With regard to the Centre of Excellence for Evaluation (CEE) of the Treasury Board Secretariat: (a) why is the 2012 Annual Report on the Health of the Evaluation Function not available online; (b) why are official languages not included in the 2011 Annual Report on the Health of the Evaluation Function; (c) how are official languages integrated into the work of the CEE; (d) does the CEE work closely with the Official Languages Centre of Excellence and, if so, how; (e) how are official languages integrated into the evaluation function as regards expenditure management in the public service as a whole; (f) why are official languages not included in the Leadership Competencies for Federal Heads of Evaluation; (g) why are official languages not included in the Policy on Evaluation; (h) how does the CEE ensure that federal institutions have access to external evaluators with official languages experience when necessary; (i) how many CEE employees work on files with an official languages component; (j) does the Framework for Professional Development for Evaluators have an official languages component and, if so, what is it; (k) why has the Audit and Evaluation Database been offline for a number of weeks, and when will it be working again; and (l) how does the CEE ensure that the tools it provides on its website take into account its official languages obligations?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, on a different point of order, but on the same general idea, earlier in question period, the member for Malpeque said, “You're lying”, to one of the ministers. I am sure he will want to withdraw that comment.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-06-07 12:03 [p.17922]
Yesterday afternoon, following question period, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel rose in the House to request that I make available to all members correspondence I have received from the Chief Electoral Officer in relation to the election expenses of certain members. I explained to the member that the matter referred to is currently the subject of a question of privilege on which I will return to the House with a ruling. I also indicated to the member that, in any case, the letters he is seeking are available through Elections Canada and that he should contact that office to obtain copies.
Some time later, the hon. member for Malpeque rose in the House to restate the request made earlier by the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and asked the Chair to reconsider. Commenting on the Chair and what he considers to be the Chair’s responsibilities, he argued:
A letter with that kind of content, referring to the ability of members to sit in this House of Commons...is...a letter to all of us. That letter should be tabled...by the Chair.
I wish to review for the House the role of the Chair with regard to the tabling of any document.
The Speaker, like ministers and parliamentary secretaries, generally tables documents in accordance with statutory requirements or the Standing Orders. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at pages 435 and 436, lists the kinds of documents the Speaker is normally called on to table.
Outside of the sorts of documents enumerated in O'Brien and Bosc, the Chair is not aware of any precedent or practice that would suggest that letters to the Speaker, even letters from an officer of Parliament, are, de facto, letters to the House, as has been suggested. The Chair does not know of any statutory or Standing Order authority that would lead to letters of this kind being tabled.
The Canada Elections Act is explicit in prescribing what reports and documents the Speaker must table and when they must be tabled. As an example, earlier this week, on June 5, pursuant to provisions of section 536 of the Canada Elections Act, I tabled a report of the Chief Electoral Officer regarding the qualifications and process of appointment of returning officers.
The Chair is mindful of its responsibilities to all members, that is, to the House as a whole and to each member as an individual parliamentarian. Similarly, every exchange with an agent of Parliament is one that I take seriously, and this is perhaps especially true of the Chief Electoral Officer, who oversees the very processes by which Canadians elect us. It seems to me all the more important that our respective roles and responsibilities be understood and respected when we are dealing with difficult issues, issues on which there is heated debate.
In the case before us, I believe that the responsibility for putting into the public domain the correspondence initiated by the Chief Electoral Officer rests with the Chief Electoral Officer. This he has done and continues to do on an ongoing basis by making available for consultation in his office a wide range of documents that it is Elections Canada's practice to make public. I trust this clarifies the Chair's approach to the situation for all hon. members.
Finally, let me say that I will return to the House as soon as I can with a ruling on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Avalon and, until I do so, I urge members to be judicious in their interventions and to avoid making erroneous assumptions.
I thank the House for its attention.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 1168--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the 1400-plus page report commissioned prior to Budget 2012 by Public-Private Partnerships Canada from the consulting firm Deloitte and Touche concerning the relevance and applicability of private delivery of prison design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance to the federal correctional system, and given that the government stated in Budget 2012 that it had no intention of building new prisons: (a) does the government or any of its departments plan to privatize new or existing correctional facilities in any aspect of their design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance or services going forward and, if so, (i) which aspects have been considered for privatization, (ii) what, if any, agreements or contracts have they entered into or do they plan to enter into with the private sector, (iii) which corporations, non-profit sector agencies, and other service providers are involved; and (b) how many Exchange of Service Agreements has Correctional Service Canada entered into with other jurisdictions for (i) sentences of two years plus a day, (ii) two years minus a day, (iii) do these agreements involve the privatization of any aspect of correctional and accommodation services and, if so, what is the nature of the privatization and which jurisdictions and third-party suppliers are involved?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), CSC operates 57 federal correctional institutions across Canada ranging from minimum to maximum security, 16 community correctional centres and 84 parole offices. None of these facilities are operated by the private sector. Budget 2012 was clear: the government has not built a single new prison since 2006 and has no intention of building any new prisons.
The government is committed to the idea that the work of guarding inmates should be performed by employees of the Government of Canada. CSC currently uses some privatized services for the delivery of specialized, non-correctional programs and services, e.g., medical professionals and educational services, which are provided through contracts with the private sector. In addition, CSC does contract, or enter into agreements, with not-for-profit organizations and communities, which operate community residential facilities, also known as halfway houses, or healing lodges, or which provide a service to CSC.
With regard to (a)(i) and (a)(iii), CSC had previously engaged in discussions with Public-Private Partnerships Canada, or PPP Canada, but has no plans to pursue the use of PPP.
With regard to (a)(ii), no agreements or contracts have been entered into.
With regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), court-imposed sentences of two years or more are administered within the federal correctional system, while sentences of less than two years are administered through the provincial/territorial correctional systems. However, Section 16 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides for the Minister of Public Safety, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into an exchange of services agreement, ESA, with the government of a province for the confinement of federal offenders in provincial correctional facilities or hospitals and the confinement of provincial offenders in federal penitentiaries.
CSC currently has bilateral ESAs with all 13 provincial/territorial jurisdictions.
With regard to (b)(iii), these agreements do not involve the privatization of any aspect of correctional and accommodation services.

Question No. 1171--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the response that the Minister of Public Safety gave to Q-471 (40th Parliament, 3rd session), indicating that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) would be submitting a long-term accommodation strategy and investment plan to Cabinet for consideration in March 2011, and given that the government stated in Budget 2012 that it had no intention of building new prisons: (a) how many regional complexes did CSC recommend building as part of this project plan, and how many units and prisoners did CSC recommend each complex house; (b) where did CSC recommend building these regional complexes as part of this project plan and what were the criteria for the selection of the proposed locations; (c) what were the total capital costs associated with designing, constructing, financing, operating, and maintaining these complexes per annum and over their projected life-cycle; (d) what was the date recommended by CSC to begin implementation of this project plan and when did CSC anticipate that these facilities would come online if their proposed timelines were followed; (e) does the government plan to move forward with this project plan and, if not, what are the grounds for rejecting this project plan?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, maintaining appropriate infrastructure that fits the needs of a first-class, modern correctional system is key to public safety.
On April 19, 2012, the government announced it will close operations at two sites: Kingston Penitentiary and the Regional Treatment Centre in Kingston, Ontario, and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec. These are aging facilities with infrastructure that does not lend itself well to the challenges of managing the institutional routines of today's complex offender population. The decommissioning of this aging infrastructure will enable CSC to achieve cost savings while ensuring public safety.
Meanwhile, CSC has been working to add more than 2,700 beds to men's and women's facilities across Canada within existing institutions. These institutional expansions will provide a more effective, efficient and sustainable physical infrastructure.
Details on infrastructure renewal at the Correctional Service of Canada are available at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/about-us/006-0008-eng.shtml.
Budget 2012 was clear; the government has not built a single new prison since 2006 and has no intention of building any new prisons.

Question No. 1178--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement at 5:15 p.m. on Friday, December 7, 2012, what was the total cost of putting on this announcement including the costs of the (i) backdrops purchased, (ii) press releases, (iii) translation services, (iv) cost of hosting a lockup for members of the media?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement at 5:15 p.m. on Friday, December 7, 2012, the Privy Council Office, PCO, spent $683.65 for the rental of a podium and lighting and $250 for the rental of 20 flagpoles from PWGSC, for a total of $933.65.

Question No. 1182--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT): (a) who drafted the press release issued on September 22, 2012, under the title “Baird Receives Honourary 7th Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo”; (b) who approved or authorized the release of that press release by or on behalf of DFAIT; (c) what was the cost of distributing it via Marketwire; (d) was the press release transmitted or distributed by any other commercial means or services and, if so, (i) which means or services, (ii) at what costs; (e) who paid or will pay the costs of using Marketwire or any other means or service; (f) was the press release published to either the national or any regional DFAIT web sites and, if so, (i) which web sites, (ii) at what time was it published, (iii) was it later removed from the web sites, (iv) if it was removed, why was it removed and when was it removed; and (g) what was the total cost of translation?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has not issued any press releases entitled “Baird Receives Honourary 7th Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo.” On September 22, 2012, a photo release was issued as part of an official visit to Canada by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, South Korea, H.E. Kim Sung-hwan. Minister Kim’s bilateral visit, which coincided with the 50th anniversary of Canada-South Korean diplomatic relations, marked the first by a South Korean foreign minister in five years.
In their meetings, the ministers discussed a variety of issues of mutual concern, including food security, human rights and the nuclear program in North Korea; Burma and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; South Korea’s support for Canada’s entry to the East Asia Summit; the situation in the Middle East; economic cooperation; and negotiations toward a Free Trade Agreement between the two countries. They also signed the Joint Declaration on Enhancing the Strategic Dialogue and witnessed the signing of a memorandum of understanding to strengthen the two countries’ collaboration on international development.
Minister Kim’s highly successful bilateral visit paved the way for Canada to welcome Prime Minister Kim Hwang-sik of South Korea in December 2012, during which time it was announced that 2013 has been designated as the Year of Korea in Canada.
The caption for the photo release was drafted by departmental communications strategists and approved by the minister’s office, as is standard practice for all communications products involving the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The photo release was not distributed via Marketwire, nor was it transmitted or distributed by any other commercial means. It was posted on the corporate DFAIT website as well as on the Flickr channel where, to date, it has received more than 6,660 views, the highest for any photo in 2012. The photo release was posted at 21:08, and has not been removed. No translation costs were incurred, as translation was undertaken by departmental officials.

Question No. 1184--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Community Development Fund and the Grand Bank Development Corporation (GBDC): (a) how much funding in total was allocated in 1991 to the GBDC under the Community Development Fund and was the funding received in a lump sum payment; (b) what organization administers the GBDC fund; (c) has the GBDC fund been exhausted and, if not, how much is left in this fund; (d) what is the annual operational cost of the GBDC; (e) what is the current status of the GBDC; (f) are there plans to change the GBDC status in the near future and, if so, (i) what are the details of any documentation stating the rationale for the change in status and, if not, (ii) will the GBDC be allowed to continue operating, in the interest of fulfilling its mandate, until such time as the initial funding on the Corporation’s balance sheet reaches zero; (g) should the GBDC cease to operate, what will happen to the unspent fund originally allocated under the Community Development Fund and the revenues being generated by money it has invested since the fund was established; (h) what is the status of the Community Development Fund allocated to (i) Trepassey, (ii) Gaultois, (iii) Botwood, (iv) South Side St. John’s; and (i) have any of those communities exhausted their funding and, if so, (i) were they permitted to continue their mandate until their funds were exhausted and, if not, (ii) was the unused portion of their funding given to another organization or agency to administer?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is concerned, with regard to the Community Development Fund, CDF, and the Grand Bank Development Corporation, GBDC, with regard to (a), during the 1990-91 fiscal year, the Government of Canada allocated $6 million in funding as a lump sum through Employment and Immigration Canada, to be administered by the Burin Peninsula Community Business Development Corporation, CBDC, to establish a community development fund for the Town of Grand Bank. As part of the funding agreement, the CBDC worked with a subcommittee, which later became incorporated as the Grand Bank Development Corporation, GBDC.
With regard to (b), there is no GBDC fund. Rather, the CBDC administers the CDF. The CBDC and the GBDC are parties to a memorandum of understanding that outlines the roles and responsibilities of each organization and assists the CBDC in fulfilling the terms and conditions of the funding agreement of the CDF.
With regard to (c), there is no GBDC fund. In 1995-96, the amounts disbursed for the CDF were exhausted; the agency is not disclosing the amount available from the return on investment, as such information could be exempted should it be requested under the Access to Information Act.
With regard to (d), the annual operational cost of the GBDC could also be exempted should it be requested under the Access to Information Act.
With regard to (e), the GBDC is currently a party to two contribution agreements with the agency, both of which are in good standing.
With regard to (f), there are no plans to change the GBDC’s status; with regard to (f)(ii), the agency has no information available.
With regard to (g), it is the responsibility of the CBDC to determine how it will fulfill the terms and conditions of the funding agreement related to the CDF.
With regard to (h), the agency has no information available. With regard to (i), the Agency has no information available.

Question No. 1191--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to amendments to the Canada Grains Act in Budget 2012: (a) what market impact studies were completed prior to making these amendments and what were the projected impacts; and (b) what were the projected impacts on farmers from these amendments?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the government undertook several initiatives over the past decade that assessed the impacts of amendments to the Canada Grains Act, CGA, including market impacts.
The CGA required that an independent and comprehensive review of the CGA and the Canadian Grain Commission, CGC, be undertaken in 2006 in response to concerns that the CGC had not kept up with grain industry needs and to deal with long-standing funding issues. Compas Inc., contracted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, completed this review and tabled its report in the House of Commons on September 18, 2006. Compas Inc. recommended that inward inspection become optional and that the CGC’s inspection services be contracted out to reduce costs to the industry. Compas Inc. also recommended exploring alternative producer payment protection models that provide optimal security at optimal prices and clarity to producers.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, SCAAF, studied the Compas Inc. report and, in December 2006, tabled its own report outlining unanimous all-party recommendations. SCAAF recommended moving to optional inward inspection to reduce unnecessary regulations and costs. SCAAF also recommended that an alternative model for producer payment security be explored to reduce costs.
The government attempted to act on these recommendations on two occasions prior to budget 2012. Unfortunately, members of Parliament from the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois colluded to prevent the passage of this legislation.
In 2010-12 the CGC consulted with producers and industry organizations regarding changes to its user fees, using consultation documents that included service descriptions and standards as well as proposed fees. Stakeholders responded that changes to the CGA were required before its user fees were updated.
In 2011 the working group on marketing freedom, established to advise the minister on the Canadian Wheat Board, CWB, recommended that an updated CGA would complement the proposed changes to the CWB. These reforms would serve to transform the Canadian grain sector to a more competitive, market-oriented environment.
In 2012 the CGC asked for additional stakeholder feedback on possible changes to the CGA. Specifically, input was requested on the governance and mandate of the CGC, producer payment security, licensing, inspection and weighing, enforcement, and any other matter pertaining to the CGA. It was estimated that the elimination of CGC-provided inward inspection and weighing and the changes to producer payment protection would result in about $20 million in savings in CGC costs per year. Stakeholders, including producers, continued to request that the CGA be modernized to reduce costs for the sector.
In 2012 the CGC conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed user fee regulations for the CGC’s updated services, based on changes to the CGA. This included an assessment of the costs and benefits of the elimination of CGC-provided inward inspection and weighing and registration and cancellation of elevator receipts. It was found that over a 15-year period, the net benefit of the changes to industry stakeholders, including producers, is a savings of $87.54 million for the elimination of CGC inward inspection and weighing and registration and cancellation of elevator receipts.
Officials from the CGC and AAFC appeared at SCAAF on November 6, 2012, to discuss these changes. Members of Parliament provided valuable feedback at that time. It should be noted that the committee and both Houses of Parliament agreed with the government’s approach and passed this legislation without amendment.
With regard to (b), the studies and consultations indicated that producers ultimately pay for any CGC services since the costs of these services are passed through grain companies on to farmers. Therefore, the impact of the projected net benefit of $87.54 million over a 15-year period for the elimination of CGC inward inspection and weighing and registration and cancellation of elevator receipts will ultimately benefit producers.

Question No. 1192--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to the publication of draft updates to the sections of the Health of Animals Regulations concerning the transportation of farm animals within Canada: (a) will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food provide a clear timeline for the publication of the proposed regulatory changes in the Canada Gazette; (b) will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food make the current draft of proposed regulatory changes available to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; and (c) will the Canadian Food Inspection Agency make submissions received during the initial public consultation period on this file, held in 2006, available to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CFIA continues to consider options for moving forward with these regulations and will need to conduct additional consultations prior to publishing regulations in Canada Gazette. Currently there are no draft regulations that are ready to be published.
With regard to (b), the issue of amending the Health of Animals Regulations to address humane transportation of animals is sensitive and complex. The CFIA must ensure that due diligence is exercised with respect to consulting Canadians on any regulatory proposal. These consultations are continuing, and only after they are completed will a regulatory proposal be prepared.
With regard to (c), the submissions made during the 2006 comment period may no longer be relevant to the current context for these regulations. If it is deemed that the submissions are relevant, they will be released at the appropriate time.

Question No. 1193--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With respect to domestic production, consumption, export, and import of oil: (a) has the government assessed the economic impact of increasing Canada's refining capacity on (i) the domestic added value, (ii) employment, (iii) international trade, (iv) internal trade, (v) consumer retail prices of gasoline and diesel fuel; (b) if yes, (i) what are the areas surveyed, (ii) which conclusion did they come to on this matter, (iii) what data was used to support this conclusion; (c) what external research, consultations, or reports were referenced to support these conclusions; (d) what internal research, consultations, or reports were referenced to support these conclusions; and (e) has the government conducted, or is it conducting specific studies, on the impact of a potential West-East pipeline on (i) job creation, (ii) domestic value-added, (iii) balance of trade, (iv) the number of jobs created in Canada, (v) what the effect of a rise of oil crude prices resulting from a West-East pipeline would be on the prices of retail gas paid by consumers in Western Canada, consumers in Central Canada and consumers in Eastern Canada?
Response
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (c) and (d), Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, has not done a formal study or report on the economic impact of increasing Canada's refining capacity. However, we keep developments in the refining sector under constant observation. In fact, NRCan has recently appeared before both parliamentary and Senate committees to provide insight on these matters. Canada has the second-highest refining capacity per capita among G8 countries; however, at 85% capacity utilization, it is currently experiencing significant overcapacity. This overcapacity is the result of a decline in North American demand for refined petroleum products.
In Canada we have a market-based approach that relies on market forces to signal when and where new refining capacity should be built.
With regard to (e), the Government of Canada supports the construction of a west-to-east pipeline and notes that the private sector has brought forward two possible projects. Given Canada’s market-based approach to energy policy, NRCan believes that the industry is best placed to determine how to move crude oil to markets, whether it be by rail, pipeline, ship or other mode of transport. All proposals for such pipelines are required to submit a detailed application to the National Energy Board, NEB, the independent federal regulator, which will then conduct a comprehensive regulatory review that could include public hearings and the submission of evidence on issues relating to but not limited to socio-economics, environment and public safety. Through this review process, concerns and questions regarding the economic impacts of a west-east pipeline would be addressed.
NRCan has extensive expertise and knowledge regarding the development of crude oil pipelines, oil markets, and the economics surrounding the development of oil and gas pipeline infrastructure in Canada. NRCan is able to support policy decisions concerning the development of energy infrastructure in Canada through the analysis and synthesis of information from many credible sources, including, but not limited to, internal reports and studies, publicly available reports and studies, academics, industry experts, non-governmental organizations and other governments.
NRCan continuously analyzes retail gasoline prices across Canada and publishes extensive information on gasoline prices and the factors that influence gasoline prices. This material is publicly available at www.fuelfocus.nrcan.gc.ca. The Fuel Focus report is published every two weeks, while gasoline price information is updated daily.

Question No. 1196--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to National Defence, how many Canadian Forces Reserve officers at the General, Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel ranks would, as of February 13, 2013, qualify for an appointment under section 165.22 of the National Defence Act, as amended by Bill C-15 in the current session of Parliament?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, clause 41 of Bill C-15, which is being debated before the current session of Parliament, would amend Section 165.22 of the National Defence Act so that it would read:
There is a Reserve Force Military Judges Panel to which the Governor in Council may name any officer of the reserve force who has been an officer for at least 10 years and who
(a) is a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years’ standing at the bar of a province;
(b) has been a military judge;
(c) has presided at a Standing Court Martial or a Special General Court Martial; or
(d) has been a judge advocate at a court martial.”
As of 27 February 2013, there were 15 Canadian Armed Forces Reserve legal officers at the General, Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel rank who met these requirements.

Question No. 1205--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to telecommunications, what is the location and owner of any cellular telephone tower which has been newly-approved, or which has been relocated from a previously-approved location to another, anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, since January 2, 2012?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this information is not available at the level of detail requested.

Question No. 1206--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to National Defence real property: (a) what are the financial terms of any agreement by which Nalcor, or contractors working on behalf of or under the auspices of Nalcor, will occupy residential quarters at 5 Wing Goose Bay; (b) what buildings at 5 Wing Goose Bay are subject to any such agreement; and (c) what are the file numbers of any such agreement or contract?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Nalcor is to pay $9,866 per day, to be paid every seven days. The authority for the lease or licence of federal real property is found under the Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act, and the agreement follows the policy and procedures for provision of services by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to non-defence agencies found in the Provision of Services manual, as well as the Treasury Board policy on management of real property.
With regard to (b), the buildings subject to the agreement are Barrack Block buildings 476 and 479.
With regard to (c), the file number of the agreement is 1001-1 (W Comd) 13 February 2013.
Agreements and contractsAllen, MalcolmAnderson, DavidAnimal healthAnimal rights and welfareBaird, JohnBrison, ScottBudget 2012 (March 29, 2012)Building and construction industryCanadian Forces Base Goose BayCanadian Forces Reserves ...Show all topics
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 1159--
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet:
With regard to consultant contracts awarded by Public Works and Government Services Canada between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2012, broken down by date, what are the dates, amounts and contract file numbers awarded to (i) Roche Consulting Group, (ii) Louisbourg Construction, (iii) Garnier Construction, (iv) Simard-Beaudry Construction, (v) Catcan Entreprises, (vi) CIMA+, (vii) Dessau?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1172--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to the Marine Atlantic, Inc. ferry operation between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and Labrador, how many sailings have taken place since 2008, broken down by (i) full date and departure time of the sailing, (ii) ship used, (iii) manifest totals, (iv) seasonal totals for each season?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1173--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to staffing at the Canada Revenue Agency, what is the number of personnel, sorted by job title and broken down by year, working on aggressive international tax planning for the years 2003-2013 inclusive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1174--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to staffing cuts at Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) how many positions at CRA have been cut as part of the government’s plan to eliminate 19,200 jobs from the federal public service as of February 1, 2013, broken down by the (i) number of actual positions cut, (ii) number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions cut, (iii) divisions where these cuts have been made, including the total number of positions and FTEs cut from each division, (iv) locations of these cuts across the country; (b) are 3,008 FTE positions still the estimated number of cuts to be made at CRA as part of the plan mentioned in (a); (c) in which divisions are the 3,008 FTE positions, or revised target number, anticipated to take place; (d) are any auditors in the Aggressive International Tax Planning (AITP) division to be cut as part of the estimate in (b); (e) how many auditor positions at CRA have been cut as of February 1, 2013; (f) how many auditor positions have been cut from the AITP division as of February 1, 2013; (g) how many auditors were working in AITP before cutbacks, if any, took place; (h) how many auditors are currently working in AITP; and (i) how many auditors were working in AITP, broken down by fiscal year, for each of the past five years, including the current fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1175--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to advertising for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for the years 2003-2013 inclusive: (a) what was the advertising budget, broken down by year; (b) how many different advertising campaigns were created or used, broken down by year; (c) how many different advertisements were produced or used, broken down by year; (d) what was the total cost (design, production, airtime, printing, etc.) for the advertising campaigns in (b); (e) what was the total cost (production, airtime, printing, etc.) for the advertisements in (c); (f) what was the cost to produce the television, radio, print, or online spots, broken down individually by advertisement; (g) what companies produced the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (h) what was the cost of television airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (i) what television channels were the advertisements aired on; (j) what was the cost of online airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (k) what online platforms were the advertisements aired on, broken down by free media (i.e. posting to YouTube) and fee media (i.e. online commercials); (l) what was the cost of ad space in newspapers and other print publications, broken down individually by advertisement; and (m) what programs or divisions of CRA were responsible for (i) overseeing/coordinating production of the advertisements, (ii) financing the production of the advertisements, (iii) financing the purchase of airtime both on television and online, and print space in newspapers and other print publications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1176--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to federal properties: (a) what is the address or location, and description, of each building, facility, or other real estate property owned or leased by a department, agency or Crown corporation in Iqaluit, Nunavut; and (b) for the leased properties, what is the start date, end date and file number of the lease?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1177--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to the Canadian Museum of Civilization: (a) how many employees, permanent and contractual, were assigned for the purposes of research, including but not limited to the Research Division, broken down by (i) year since 2005-2006, (ii) position, (iii) academic field (anthropology, ethnology, archeology, etc.), (iv) division; (b) for the next five years, what is the projected number of permanent employees who will be assigned to research in all museum divisions, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) academic field (anthropology, ethnology, archeology, etc.), (iv) division; (c) how many meetings were held to discuss aspects of the change of name and mandate of the museum between museum officials and (i) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (ii) the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (iii) the Department of Canadian Heritage, (iv) museum employees; (d) since 2007-2008, broken down by year, how many informal meetings and telephone calls were held between museum officials and (i) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (ii) the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage (iii) the Department of Canadian Heritage; (e) what is the total number of visits to the museum made by (i) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (ii) the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (iii) the Department of Canadian Heritage; (f) for all exhibits since 2006, broken down by exhibit, what was the (i) total number of visitors, (ii) percentage of local visitors, (iii) percentage of visitors from outside Canada, (iv) total amount of revenues, (v) projected budget at the beginning of the planning stages, (vi) total expenses; (g) since 2008-2009, (i) what were the annual revenues of the museum per year, (ii) what are the projected annual revenues of the museum per year for next five years, (iii) do these projections take into account the change of name and mandate; (h) what is the projected number of visitors to the museum per year (not including the Canadian War Museum), for the next five years; (i) which groups (including but not limited to associations, professional associations, groups representing First Nations) and experts (including but not limited to historians, archeologists, academics) were consulted (i) prior to the Minister’s announcement of the change of name and mandate on October 16, 2012, and (ii) since the announcement of October 16, 2012; (j) regarding the consultations held between November 9, 2012, and January 31, 2013, (i) what were the total costs, (ii) how many members of the public (other than museum employees) attended each consultation; (k) regarding the funding of 25 million dollars that will “come from within the existing budget for Canadian Heritage”, according to an October 16, 2012 press release from the Department of Canadian Heritage, (i) from which programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage has funding been diverted towards this funding, (ii) what was the funding for these programs since 2008-2009, (iii) which programs’ funding will be restored to 2011-2012 levels following the museum investment; (l) regarding costs related to changing the name of the museum (including but not limited to changes to signage, logotypes, and rebranding), (i) what is the current earmarked budget, (ii) what are the projected total costs over the next five years; (m) what is the total cost of promotional materials (including but not limited to bookmarks, temporary signage, websites and paper materials) referring to the Canadian Museum of History or the change of name and mandate, or using such terms as “History Museum” and “Museum of History”; (n) what is the total cost of advertising by the museum, broken down by year and types of advertising, including but not limited to billboards, print, radio, television and online advertising, since 2006-2007; (o) for each occasion in which external legal services were provided to the museum in the last three years (i) which firms or individuals provided legal services, including but not limited to counsel or representation, to the museum, (ii) when, (iii) for what period of time, (iv) what was the nature of these services, (v) what was the purpose of these services, (vi) what were the total costs per occasion when these services were provided to the museum; and (p) for each project, exhibition or display created for or by the museum since 2005-2006 that were not displayed on museum premises, (i) what was the subject matter, (ii) where have these been displayed, (iii) what are the total costs for each, (iv) how many employees were assigned to each, at all stages (including but not limited to design, construction, and installation) (v) what were the starting and ending dates of work on each, (vi) what were the starting and ending dates of viewing or display?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1179--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to military procurement: (a) how many Canadian Forces members or employees are assigned to procurement by the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force, and by each of the Department of National Defence, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Industry Canada, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Western Economic Diversification Canada, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, FedNor, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, the Secretariat of the Treasury Board, the Treasury Board, or any other department or agency, specifying which; (b) for each of the foregoing branches, departments or agencies, what is the total labour cost in respect of such employment; and (c) in relation to each of the military procurement programs found on the Industry Canada web page entitled “List of Procurements and their IRB Managers”, which is published at ic.gc.ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/h_00017.html, (i) how many Canadian Forces members or employees are assigned to each project, and from which branch of the armed forces or department or agency of government, (ii) what is or has been the annual budget of each program since their starting date, (iii) has any program ever been cancelled, suspended, or postponed and, if so, which and when and for each, when was it re-commenced and what was the reason for any such cancellation, suspension, or postponement, (iv) which programs have requested additional funds from Treasury Board, and for each, when was the request made, and what was the additional amount requested, (v) what is the value of each program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1180--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs program, what was the total budget for the program in each federal electoral district in each calendar year since 2005 inclusive, and what is the total budget for the program in each federal electoral district for the summer of 2013?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1181--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency, for every year since 2006, how many charities have been audited and what is the name of each charity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1187--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to First Nations policing: (a) which First Nations policing agreements will expire on March 31, 2013 or March 31, 2014, broken down by (i) community, (ii) type of agreement, (iii) population served by the agreement, (iv) number of officers funded by the agreement; (b) of these agreements that will expire on March 31, 2013 or March 31, 2014, which ones does the government plan to renew and what are the terms for each renewed agreement; (c) are any existing agreements being extended on a short-term basis only and, if so, why; (d) of those First Nations and Inuit communities with policing agreements in place, which ones have been consulted in the last 28 months about the status of their agreement, (i) where did these consultations take place, (ii) when were they held, (iii) with whom, (iv) if no such consultations were held, why not and are there currently plans to hold consultations with First Nations and Inuit communities about the status of their agreement; (e) why are most First Nation Police Services operating on short term agreements or on one or two year extensions; (f) does the government have plans to replace year-to-year agreements with longer term agreements of a five year duration or more; (g) why does the government approve extensions and funding for many First Nations Police Service agreements a short time before they expire; (h) does the government have plans to expand this program to additional First Nations and Inuit communities currently without a policing service agreement, (i) if so, which communities, (ii) if not, why not; (i) will federal funding levels for the First Nations Policing Program change overall after March 31, 2013 and if so, by how much, broken down by agreement; (j) how many communities served by a policing agreement have Community Consultative Groups in place and which communities are they, broken down by community; (k) for those communities without Community Consultative Groups in place, what is the reason for why these groups have not been put in place, broken down by community; (l) how does the Aboriginal Policing Division monitor or evaluate the performance of existing agreements in achieving program objectives and what are the findings of all monitoring and evaluation activities, broken down by community; (m) for those communities with Community Tripartite Agreements, how many officers are assigned to each community and how many of those assignments are actively filled, broken down by community; (n) for those communities with Community Tripartite Agreements, how much time do officers tasked to the community spend in the particular community, broken down by (i) agreement, (ii) year, (iii) number of officers assigned to the community; (o) how many First Nations Policing Services have received funding under the Police Officer Recruitment fund, broken down by First Nations Police Service, and by year; (p) is the government currently developing policy options to guide the future direction of the First Nations Policing Program as a result of the 2009-2010 Evaluation of the First Nations Policing Program, (i) if so, does the government plan to release these policy options in a report, (ii) if so, when, (iii) if not, why not; and (q) why is there currently no legislated funding for First Nations policing as an essential service and does the government currently have plans to develop legislation to fund First Nations policing as an essential service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1188--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to funding for First Nations students for each year from 2006-2013, broken down by year, how much of this funding: (a) went to students attending schools off reserve; (b) went towards the internal operations of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada; (c) went towards project-based funding; and (d) is discretionary funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1189--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to the Government of Canada Aboriginal Portal: (a) what was the cost of running and maintaining this portal each year, from 2006 to 2012; (b) how many people used the Portal each year between 2006 and 2012, broken down by sub-sites accessed through the Portal; (c) what services provided by, or facilitated by, the Portal are no longer available to the public since the Portal closed on February 12, 2013; and (d) what studies did the government undertake on the impact of closing the Portal and (i) what were the findings of these studies, (ii) what stakeholders were consulted by the government regarding closing the Portal, (iii) what were the comments and feedback provided by these stakeholders?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1190--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to government travel, how many visits to First Nation reserves have each of the following cabinet members made between 2006 and 2013, broken down by year and by reserve: (a) the Prime Minister; (b) the Minister of Public Safety; (c) the Minister of Justice; (d) the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development; (e) the Minister of Finance; (f) the Minister of Canadian Heritage; (g) the Minister of the Environment; (h) the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; (i) the Minister of Natural Resources; (j) the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; and (k) the Minister of Health?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1194--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI): (a) in each year since 2005 until present, (i) how many total employees did MAI employ, (ii) how many ferry crew positions were assigned, (iii) how many dockside positions were assigned, (iv) how many front desk/customer service personnel were assigned, (v) how many management positions were assigned; (b) for each year since 2005 until present and for each employee listed in each year, (i) from where was the position located, (ii) has the position been relocated, (iii) what was the rationale for position relocation, (iv) did the employee deal directly with customers, (v) was the position considered management, (vi) what was the salary or hourly wage, (vii) was the position on a ferry or on the shore; (c) how have federal budgetary cuts affected MAI’s employment levels; (d) what was the actual cost recovery compared to the projected cost recovery for each year since 2005; (e) was there any consultation before raising fares by four percent effective April 1, 2013, and, if so, what were the results of the consultation; (g) how many ferry trips have been cancelled or rescheduled in each year since 2005; and (h) following a ferry cancellation or rescheduling, when services resume, how many times have the standby vessels been used to assist in transporting backlog passengers and vehicles?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1195--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the Canadian Forces and its grievance system: (a) what is the total number of grievances submitted by Regular Force personnel during each of the following years: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012; (b) what is the total number of grievances referred to the Chief of Defence Staff in his capacity as the Final Authority during each of the following years: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012; (c) at the end of each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what was the total number of grievances which have yet to be adjudicated by the Chief of Defence Staff in his capacity as the Final Authority; and (d) of all the grievances which were awaiting adjudication from the Chief of the Defence Staff in his capacity as the Final Authority as of February 15, 2013, what was the (i) rank of the grievor, (ii) subject of the grievance, (iii) date of the original grievance, (iv) date of the decisions reached by the Initial Authority, (v) date on which the grievance was elevated to the Final Authority by the Grievor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1197--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG), what was the number of JAG officers serving at the end of each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 in each of the following ranks: Major-General, Brigadier-General, Colonel, Lieutenant-Colonel, major and captain, and what were the salary costs for each year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1198--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to suicides in the Canadian Forces: (a) for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what was the number of suicides of Regular Forces members, and for each instance, what was the rank, age at death, location and was a Board of Inquiry convened; and (b) for each Board of Inquiry convened in the suicide death of a Canadian Forces (Regular) member, what was the date of death and on what date did the Chief of the Defence Staff approve the findings and recommendations of the said Board?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1199--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers, for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, how many JAG officers attended post-graduate training, and what was the rank of each officer, the name and location of the educational institution attended, and the cost of tuition paid by the Crown?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1200--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to military costs, for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what were the total costs for salaries, operations and maintenance for the (i) Office of the Judge Advocate General, (ii) Office of the Chief Military Judge, (iii) Office of the Director Military Prosecutions, (iv) Office of the Defence Counsel Services, (v) Office of the Deputy Judge Advocate General-Military Justice?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1201--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Forces (CF) Public Affairs Branch, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) how many DND executives, by classification and level, and DND civilian employees were employed within DND and the CF in public affairs or related functions; (b) what was the amount paid in (i) salaries, (ii) bonuses, (iii) allowances to these civilian employees; and (c) how many CF Regular Force members, broken down by rank, were serving in the Public Affairs Branch and what amount was paid to these CF members in (i) salaries, (ii) bonuses, (iii) allowances?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1202--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Military Families Fund, broken down by fiscal year for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what was (i) the total amount received in donations from the general public, (ii) the expenditures charged to the fund, (iii) the amount paid out in benefits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1203--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Canadian Military Journal for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) what were the detailed costs for producing the Canadian Military Journal, broken down by (i) salaries, (ii) postage, (iii) printing costs, (iv) translation, (v) other costs; and (b) what were the revenues received in (i) subscription fees and advertising, (ii) the number of copies printed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1204--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Royal Military College (RMC), for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) what were the numbers of graduates and undergraduates; (b) what were the profiles of officer cadets who entered the RMC, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) first official language, (ii) province of origin; (c) what were the profiles of RMC officer cadets who graduated and are commissioned, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) first official language; and (d) what is the number of RMC undergraduates who have been exempted or otherwise unable to attain the established standard for bilingualism in each of the two official language groupings?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-411-1159 Consultation contracts8555-411-1159-01 Consultation contracts8555-411-1172 Marine Atlantic, Inc.8555-411-1173 Canada Revenue Agency8555-411-1174 Canada Revenue Agency8555-411-1175 Canada Revenue Agency8555-411-1176 Federal properties8555-411-1177 Canadian Museum of Civilization8555-411-1179 Military procurement8555-411-1180 Canada Summer Jobs program8555-411-1181 Canada Revenue Agency ...Show all topics
View Jason Kenney Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jason Kenney Profile
2013-01-29 17:27 [p.13412]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I just clearly, audibly, heard the member for Malpeque say twice, “They are a bunch of racists”.
This is disgusting and beneath that member, beneath any member of this place. I would ask that he stand and withdraw.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2013-01-29 17:27 [p.13412]
Members will know, of course, that these types of words and references are not helpful to civil debate.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2013-01-29 17:27 [p.13412]
I thank the hon. minister for his intervention and the hon. member for Malpeque.
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 995--
Mrs. Maria Mourani:
With regard to Aéroports de Montréal (ADM), from 2005 to 2012: (a) what has been the relationship between ADM and the company Construction Gastier inc., (i) does ADM lease any kind of space to it on its airport sites, (ii) if so, since when, (iii) what is the lease cost, (iv) is there a security protocol between ADM and Construction Gastier inc. regarding this occupation of airport space; and (b) what has been the relationship between ADM and the company Construction Gastier international, (i) does ADM lease any kind of space to it on its airport sites, (ii) if so, since when, (iii) what is the lease cost, (iv) is there a security protocol between ADM and Construction Gastier international regarding this occupation of airport space?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Aéroports de Montréal, ADM, a not-for-profit corporation without share capital, is responsible for managing, operating and developing Montreal-Trudeau and Montreal-Mirabel airports under a long-term lease with Transport Canada. ADM has full responsibility for managing business, contracts, tenders and leases of its airports, in compliance with the provisions of the lease and the applicable regulations. ADM operates independently, and Transport Canada does not interfere with the management of the corporation’s day-to-day business.

Question No. 996--
Mrs. Maria Mourani:
With regard to the business relationships maintained by Aéroports de Montréal (ADM): (a) with the company Construction Gastier inc., from 2005 to 2012, (i) did it receive contracts from ADM, (ii) what was the value of the contracts, (iii) were the contracts tendered or was a ministerial exemption required, (iv) if there was a ministerial exemption, what were the grounds for it, (v) is there a security protocol between ADM and Construction Gastier inc. on all contracts awarded; and (b) with the company Construction Gastier international, from 2005 to 2012, (i) did it receive contracts from ADM, (ii) what was the value of the contracts, (iii) were the contracts tendered or was a ministerial exemption required, (iv) if there was a ministerial exemption, what were the grounds for it, (v) is there a security protocol between ADM and Construction Gastier international on all contracts awarded?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Aéroports de Montréal, ADM, a not-for-profit corporation without share capital, is responsible for managing, operating and developing Montreal-Trudeau and Montreal-Mirabel airports under a long-term lease with Transport Canada. ADM has full responsibility for managing business, contracts, tenders and leases of its airports, in compliance with the provisions of the lease and the applicable regulations. ADM operates independently, and Transport Canada does not interfere with the management of the corporation’s day-to-day business.

Question No. 997--
Mrs. Maria Mourani:
With regard to the public tendering of renovation and construction work at the Montréal-Trudeau Airport and any other public tendering at the Montréal-Trudeau Airport, from 2000 to 2012, for each public tender: (a) which companies submitted bids; (b) which companies were awarded the contract and carried out the work; (c) what documentation was made available to the companies in the public tender; (d) what costs did the airport charge companies in order to have access to the public tender; (e) are there security protocols between the airport and the companies that submitted bids and did not receive contracts; and (f) are there security protocols between the airport and the companies that submitted bids and were awarded contracts?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Aéroports de Montréal, ADM, a not-for-profit corporation without share capital, is responsible for managing, operating and developing Montreal-Trudeau and Montreal-Mirabel airports under a long-term lease with Transport Canada. ADM has full responsibility for managing business, contracts, tenders and leases of its airports, in compliance with the provisions of the lease and the applicable regulations. ADM operates independently, and Transport Canada does not interfere with the management of the corporation’s day-to-day business.

Question No. 998--
Mrs. Maria Mourani:
With regard to untendered renovation and construction contracts at the Montréal-Trudeau Airport for which the airport requested a ministerial exemption, from 2000 to 2012, for each contract awarded: (a) which companies were awarded the contract and carried out the work; (b) what documentation was made available to these companies; (c) what costs did the airport charge these companies; (d) are there security protocols between the airport and these companies; (e) what are these security protocols; and (f) what justifications did the airport provide the department to be entitled to an exemption from the requirement to issue a call for tenders?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Aéroports de Montréal, ADM, a not-for-profit corporation without share capital, is responsible for managing, operating and developing the Montreal-Trudeau and Montreal-Mirabel international airports under a long-term lease with Transport Canada. ADM has full responsibility for managing the business, contracts, tenders and leases of its airports, in compliance with the provisions of the lease and the applicable regulations. ADM operates independently, and Transport Canada does not interfere with the management of the corporation’s day-to-day business.

Question No. 1000--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to the Department of Finance report titled “Economic and Fiscal Implications of Canada's Aging Population” released October 23, 2012: (a) which senior officials or outside consultants made recommendations regarding this report, including, (i) their names, (ii) their duties; (b) what was the total cost of the report; and (c) what portion of that cost was paid to outside consultants?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the report titled “Economic and Fiscal Implications of Canada’s Aging Population” was prepared by officials at the Department of Finance, economic and fiscal policy branch. There were no incremental costs associated with the report and no fees were paid to outside consultants.

Question No. 1012--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to Transport Canada, how many requests for information, made pursuant to section 4 of the Access to Information Act, is the department currently processing, reviewing, or considering, and for each such request: (a) what is the file number; (b) what is the date on which the application was made; (c) what is the date on which the application was received; (d) what are the details of any extensions of time limits made pursuant to section 9 of the Act; and (e) what are the details of any complaint which has been made to the department in respect of the request?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the access to information and privacy electronic database does not have the capability to generate the requested information in both official languages.

Question No. 1013--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to foreign affairs: (a) did Canada vote in the October 2012 vote to ratify the membership of Rwanda in the United Nations Security Council and, if so, how did Canada vote; and (b) what was the foreign policy rationale which governed Canada’s vote or abstention from the vote?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, given the secret nature of the ballot, Canada does not make public its voting decisions for membership in the United Nations Security Council. In the case of the Africa group, there was only one candidate.

Question No. 1015--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to Aboriginal affairs, how many persons have been registered on the Indian Register on or after November 20, 2002, as members of (i) the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation, and (ii) the Mushuau Innu First Nation, distinguishing the number of persons so added who were born before November 20, 2002, and those who were born on or after November 20, 2002?
Response
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the two first nations were created by order in council on November 21, 2002. At that point, there were 691 people on the founding list for the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation, and 491 people on the founding list for the Mushuau Innu First Nation.
Additionally, there was a follow-up list on August 22, 2003, which added 158 members to the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation list and 94 members to the Mushuau Innu First Nation list.
Since that time, an additional 585 persons were added to the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation list, with 322 of those individuals being born before November 20, 2002, and 263 individuals being born after that date.
Three hundred persons were added to the Mushuau Innu First Nation list, with 96 of those individuals being born before November 20, 2002, and 204 individuals being born after that date.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 901--
Mr. Brian Jean:
With regard to questions Q-513 through Q-818 on the Order Paper: (a) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 906--
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre:
With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC): (a) what has been the growth in federal inmate population since March 2010; (b) what programming is provided by the CSC to inmates in federal custody, listed by (i) program title, (ii) description, (iii) length, (iv) availability; (c) what is the percentage of inmates who have access, before the end of their sentence, to programs which have been court ordered; (d) what percentage of federal prisoners are double-bunked; (e) how many more cells would be needed to achieve single cell occupancy; (f) how many more cells would be needed to achieve the CSC's ideal maximum counts in penitentiaries; and (g) how many new cells are being built, (i) how many cells are finished, (ii) what is the timeline for their readiness?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 907--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to the National Arts Centre, the Canadian Science and Technology Museums Corporation, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canadian Museum of Nature, the National Art Gallery of Canada, the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21, the Canadian Museum of Human Rights, and the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography: (a) what is the date of incorporation for each of these organizations; (b) what was the total federal appropriation for operations, broken down by organization, by fiscal year, from the year ended March 31, 1965, through to the year ended March 31, 2012; (c) what was the total operating revenue for each organization, broken down by fiscal year from the year ended March 31, 1965, through to the year ended March 31, 2012; (d) what were the total operating expenses for each organization, broken down by fiscal year from the year ended March 31, 1965, through to the year ended March 31, 2012; (e) what was the total federal appropriation for capital, broken down by organization, by fiscal year, from the year ended March 31, 1965, through to the year ended March 31, 2012; (f) what were the total capital expenditures for each organization, broken down by fiscal year, from the year ended March 31, 1965, through to the year ended March 31, 2012; (g) what was the total other federal appropriation, not related to operations or capital, broken down by organization, by fiscal year, from the year ended March 31, 1965, through to the year ended March 31, 2012; (h) what is the length of time of the current federal funding agreement for each organization and when does it expire; (i) what is the legal designation and structure of each organization; (j) what is the mandate of each organization; and (k) who are the current Board of Director members for each organization, including vacancies, (i) how often does the Board of Directors of each organization meet on an annual basis, (ii) what is the primary purpose of the Board of Directors of each organization, (iii) do the Boards of Directors report to a higher authority?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 908--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With respect to the licensing or sale of trademarks, official marks, copyrights, patents, industrial designs, integrated circuit topographies, or plant breeders’ rights: (a) how much revenue has each department, agency, or crown corporation received in each fiscal year since 2006-2007 inclusively; (b) how much has each department, agency, or crown corporation spent in enforcement; (c) how many notices has each department, agency, or crown corporation issued or transmitted to third parties in respect of alleged infringements; (d) how many actions has each department, agency, or crown corporation commenced against third parties in respect of alleged infringements; and (e) what is the current status of each such action?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 910--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to content removal requests issued to an internet search engine, aggregator, web hosting service, or other internet service provider, but not including Google Inc., since January 1, 2006, how many such requests have been government issued and what is the (i) date of each request, (ii) originating department, agency, or other government body, (iii) recipient of the request, (iv) detailed reason for the request, (v) outcome or disposition of the request?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 911--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to government announcements on or around September 14, 2012, in relation to the awarding of battle honours to regiments with ties to units who participated in battles during the War of 1812: (a) what were the total travel and accommodation costs associated with the announcements or related meetings and events for all individuals who participated, including those of staff members or other government employees; (b) other than travel and accommodation costs, what were all other costs for (i) the Prime Minister in Saint-Paul-de-l'Île-aux-Noix, Quebec, (ii) Mr. John Williamson, Member of Parliament for New Brunswick Southwest, in Fredericton, New Brunswick, (iii) the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Member of Parliament for Niagara Falls, in St. Catharines, Ontario, (iv) Mr. Phil McColeman, Member of Parliament for Brant, in Brantford, Ontario, (vi) Mr. Royal Galipeau, Member of Parliament for Ottawa—Orleans, in Brockville, Ontario, (vii) the Honourable Fabian Manning, Senator, in St. John’s, Newfoundland, (viii) Mr. Dave Van Kesteren, Member of Parliament for Chatham-Kent—Essex, in Windsor, Ontario, (ix) the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, in Toronto, Ontario, (x) Mr. David Sweet, Member of Parliament for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, in Hamilton, Ontario, (xi) Ms. Susan Truppe, Member of Parliament for London North Centre, in London, Ontario, (xii) Mr. Ed Holder, Member of Parliament for London West, in London, Ontario, (xiii) Mr. Guy Lauzon, Member of Parliament for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, in Cornwall, Ontario, (xiv) Mr. Parm Gill, Member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale, in Brampton, Ontario, (xv) Mr. Scott Armstrong, Member of Parliament for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, in Truro, Nova Scotia; and (c) other than travel and accommodation costs, what were all the costs for persons named in (i) through (xv) in any other location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 913--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to content removal requests to Google Inc. prior to April 1, 2011, how many such requests have been government issued and what is (i) the date of the request, (ii) the originating department, agency, or other government body, (iii) the detailed reason for the
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 914--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the case of Jodhan v. Canada (Attorney General): (a) how much has the government spent across all departments to pursue this case, at all levels of court proceedings, between January 1, 2007, and September 16, 2012; and (b) what specific steps has the government taken since May 30, 2012, to comply with the Federal Court of Appeal’s requirement that the government bring its websites into compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 915--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With respect to government advertising: (a) what has been the overall budget for advertising, broken down by department, agency, or crown corporation, including references to the bicentennial of the War of 1812, (i) in print, (ii) on radio, (iii) on television, (iv) on the internet, (v) other medium; and (b) what are the (i) date, (ii) medium, (iii) cost, (iv) subject matter of each individual advertisement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 918--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to programs promoting women’s rights and the rights of gay and lesbian people and other sexual minorities outside Canada: (a) what are the total expenditures spent by the government in this regard; (b) what are the details of each program, broken down by program; and (c) what are the grants or contributions allocated for this purpose, and for each grant or contribution, what was the (i) recipient organization, (ii) recipient country, (iii) purpose of the funding, (iv) date of the funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 919--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With respect to government advertising at the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, including the opening and closing ceremonies: (a) what was the overall budget for advertising in (i) print, (ii) radio, (iii) television, (iv) internet, (v) other medium, broken down by department, agency, or crown corporation during any television broadcast; and (b) what are the (i) dates, (ii) medium, (iii) cost, (iv) subject matter of each individual advertisement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 920--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With respect to government advertising mentioning the 2012 Summer Olympics and the 2012 Summer Paralympics, or licensing official Olympic or Canadian Olympic Committee marks: (a) what was the overall budget for advertising (i) in print, (ii) on radio, (iii) on television, (iv) on the internet, (v) any other medium, broken down by department, agency or crown corporation; and (b) what are the (i) dates, (ii) medium, (iii) cost, (iv) subject matter, broken down by individual advertisement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 921--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With respect to expenditure review: (a) what are the dates and file numbers of all contracts, agreements or statements of work between Deloitte Inc. and the government since January 1, 2010; and (b) what are the dates, file numbers and titles of any reports, documents or other work submitted to the government by Deloitte Inc. in association with expenditure review?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 922--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to the upcoming cuts to the public service, how many positions are to be eliminated, broken down by (i) department, (ii) branch, (iii) municipality, (iv) administrative region?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 923--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With respect to the Correctional Service of Canada, at each federal correctional facility, in each fiscal year since 2006-2007 inclusively, what was the number of (i) full-time staff, (ii) part-time staff, (iii) casual staff, (iv) inmates?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 925--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to all cuts to government spending announced since Budget 2012: (a) how will announced service cuts affect Aboriginal organizations, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, non-status Indians or people living off-reserve; (b) how will announced program or core funding cuts affect Aboriginal organizations, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, non-status Indians or people living off-reserve; (c) how will announced staff cuts affect Aboriginal organizations, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, non-status Indians or people living off-reserve; (d) what consultations took place before the cuts were announced with groups representing Aboriginal organizations, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, non-status Indians or people living off-reserve; and (e) what analysis has been done on the possible effects of service, program and staff cuts to Aboriginal organizations, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, non-status Indians or people living off-reserve?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 926--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to maritime transportation, for each of the following Canadian-registered motor vessels in passenger, vehicle ferry, or cargo transportation service in Newfoundland and Labrador, namely Ahelaid, Apollo, Astron, Beaumont Hamel, Captain Earl W. Windsor, Challenge One, Flanders, Gallipoli, Grace Sparkes, Green Bay Transport, Hamilton Sound, Hazel McIsaac, Inch Arran, Island Joiner, Marine Eagle, Marine Voyager, Nonia, Northern Ranger, Northern Seal, Sir Robert Bond, Sound of Islay, Terra Nova, and Winchester: (a) what regular inspections have been carried out since January 1, 2005; (b) what special inspections have been carried out since January 1, 2005; (c) what were the dates and file numbers of those inspections; and (d) what deficiencies, if any, were found at each inspection?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 927--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the reconstruction, relocation, replacement, or renewal of airports or airstrips, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any reports, studies, files, or dossiers held by any department or agency, created, submitted, or modified at any time since January 1, 2006, at (i) Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Hopedale, Newfoundland and Labrador, (iii) Makkovik, Newfoundland and Labrador, (iv) Postville, Newfoundland and Labrador, (v) Rigolet, Newfoundland and Labrador, (vi) Cartwright, Newfoundland and Labrador, (vii) Black Tickle, Newfoundland and Labrador, (viii) Charlottetown, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ix) Port Hope Simpson, Newfoundland and Labrador, (x) St. Lewis, Newfoundland and Labrador, (xi) St. Anthony, Newfoundland and Labrador, (xii) Deer Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador, (xiii) Stephenville, Newfoundland and Labrador, (xi) Blanc Sablon, Quebec?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 930--
Mr. Robert Chisholm:
With regard to internal services for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what have been the expenditures on internal services for each of the last five fiscal years; (b) what are the expected expenditures on internal services for the next two fiscal years; (c) have the locations of any internal services been moved in the last two years; and (d) will the locations of any internal services be moved in the next five years, and if so, what are (i) the timelines for these moves, particularly for accounts payable, accounts receivable and procurement, (ii) the new locations for these services, (iii) the costs of these moves?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 932--
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain:
With regard to the Aboriginal Women’s Program under Canadian Heritage: (a) for each year from 2004 to 2012, which organizations received funding, and how much did they receive annually; (b) what are the criteria for receiving funding; (c) what changes have been made to the criteria for receiving funding in the past six years; (d) what kinds of consultations were held before the changes were implemented, including (i) a list of those consulted, (ii) dates and formats of consultations; and (e) what kind of accommodations were made based on those consultations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 936--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to the cancellation of the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) program and discontinuance of funding: (a) what initiatives or programs are being cut; (b) for each initiative or program, what are the amounts of the planned decreases in human resources and funding; (c) will positions be eliminated and, if so, how many; and (d) which initiatives and/or programs will be eliminated by Budget 2012?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 937--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to the cancellation of the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) program and dismantling of the Experimental Lakes Area science team: (a) what assessment led to the termination of the ELA program; (b) what was the review process; (c) which departments led the review; (d) who made the decision to terminate the program and on what date; (e) does the ELA research program align with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ priorities, and if not, how does the ELA research program fail to align with the mandate; and (f) does the ELA research program align with the mandate of Environment Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 939--
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain:
With regard to funding for First Nations, Inuit and Métis, for each department and program in the last five years, how much funding was spent on: (a) operating costs, broken down by (i) salaries and benefits for government employees, (ii) salaries and fees for consultants hired by the government, (iii) other enumerated costs; and (b) transfers to First Nations, Inuit and Métis, broken down by (i) payments made to First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, (ii) payments made to First Nations bands on-reserve, (iii) other enumerated transfer payments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 942--
Ms. Laurin Liu:
With regard to the Federal Partners in Technology Transfer (FPTT) and intellectual property management in the government, between 2000-2001 and 2011-2012: (a) what was the full amount of federal funds allocated to FPTT each year; (b) how many patents were requested, granted and obtained each year; and (c) to whom does the government plan to entrust the functions performed by FPTT?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 943--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to government publishing after the transition to exclusively electronic publications: (a) what are the government’s plans or procedures to ensure the preservation, for posterity, of (i) publications published by the Publishing Program, (ii) publications provided by departments to the Depository Services Program; and (b) concerning such preservation, what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of any reports, studies, or dossiers prepared by, for, or on behalf of (i) Publishing and Depository Services, (ii) Public Works and Government Services Canada, (iii) Heritage Canada, (iv) Library and Archives Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 944--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to passport services: (a) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all studies, between 1997 and 2012, conducted by or commissioned on behalf of (i) Passport Canada, examining the prospective financial performance of a Passport Canada Office in Prince Edward Island, (ii) the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, examining the prospective financial performance of a Passport Canada office in Prince Edward Island, (iii) Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, examining the prospective financial performance of a Passport Canada office in Prince Edward Island, (iv) Passport Canada, examining the prospective cost of implementing emergency passport services in any passport office in Prince Edward Island, (v) the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, examining the prospective cost of implementing emergency passport services in any passport office in Prince Edward Island, (vi) Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, examining the prospective cost of implementing emergency passport services in any passport office in Prince Edward Island; (b) what are the costs incurred, from fiscal year 2001-2002 to the current fiscal year, (i) by Passport Canada in providing passport services to the residents of Prince Edward Island, broken down by service location, (ii) by Service Canada in providing passport services to the residents of Prince Edward Island, broken down by service location; and (c) what are the costs incurred for the operations of Passport Canada locations, from fiscal year 2006-2007 to the present, in (i) Halifax, Nova Scotia, (ii) Fredericton, New Brunswick, (iii) Regina, Saskatchewan, (iv) Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, (v) Kelowna, British Columbia, (vi) St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 945--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to Treasury Board guidelines, or any other government-wide conflict of interest or ethical guidelines or policies for Ministers of the Crown who travel on official Canadian government business: (a) are government Ministers, while on official duty either in Canada or abroad, excluding while in their own residences, required to stay in a hotel, motel or an equivalent commercial entity used as a place of temporary abode; (b) what is the conflict of interest disclosure policy for Ministers who, while on official duty, forgo normal accommodations, such as a hotel, motel, or an equivalent commercial entity used as a place of temporary abode and choose to stay instead in private accommodations; (c) are Ministers required to disclose the names of the individuals with whom they have opted to stay so as to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest; and (d) in lieu of normal accommodation such as a hotel, motel or an equivalent commercial entity used as a place of temporary abode, what is the financial disclosure requirement for the use of private accommodation while on official government business?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 946--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the conservation or health of the George River caribou herd, since January 1, 2006, has any department or agency taken part in any study, hearing, conference, meeting, or process and, if so, what are the file numbers, dates, titles and other details of these studies, hearings, conferences, meetings, or processes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 948--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to government announcements on or around October 1, 2012, in relation to red tape reduction: (a) what were the total travel and accommodation costs associated with the announcements or related meetings and events for all individuals who participated, including those of staff members or other government employees; (b) other than travel and accommodation costs, what were all other costs for (i) the Minister of Industry in Quebec City, Quebec, (ii) the Minister of National Revenue in Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) the President of the Treasury Board in Mississauga, Ontario, (iv) the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism) in Verdun, Quebec, (v) the Minister of Veterans Affairs in Vancouver, British Columbia, (vi) any other Minister or Parliamentary Secretary; and (c) other than travel and accommodation costs, what were the total costs for persons named in (i) through (vi) in any other location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 952--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA): (a) has the government had any meetings or discussions with representatives of companies or organizations in the natural resources sector regarding the transfer of the ELA, and, if so, (i) who were the representatives, (ii) where did the meetings take place, (iii) when did the meetings take place; (b) what benefits, if any, does the government see in transferring the ELA to the natural resources sector; (c) how would the Canada-Ontario Memorandum of Agreement be affected in the event of (i) ELA site transfer to the private sector, (ii) site transfer to a university or consortium of universities, (iii) the shuttering or mothballing of the site, (iv) the permanent remediation of the site; (d) has the government’s moratorium on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Major Resources Support Program affected the ability of the government to transfer the site to a university or consortium of universities; (e) would any potential new operator of the ELA have to assume liability for the remediation of the ELA site, and what is the approximate projected cost of site remediation; and (f) is the research done at the ELA primarily the responsibility of the public sector or the private sector?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 953--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) how many active members are currently enlisted in the Canadian Forces, broken down by (i) Royal Canadian Air Force, (ii) Royal Canadian Navy, (iii) Land Forces, (iv) location of current deployment, for each of (i) through (iii); (b) what is the net change in strength of each branch since 2006; (c) how many Canadian Forces members are officers and how many are non-commissioned members; (d) of the officer ranks, how many are senior officers and how many are general staff; (e) of the active Canadian Forces members, how many are employed in (i) the trades of the combat arms, namely artillery, armoured, or infantry, (ii) non-combat roles; (f) of the active Canadian Forces members deployed during the combat mission in Afghanistan, how many were employed in (i) the trades of the combat arms, (ii) in a supporting or logistical role; (g) how many public servants are currently employed by the Canadian Forces, broken down by location of employment; and (h) since 2006, what is the yearly change in strength of (i) the regular force, (ii) the reserve force, (iii) civilian employees of the Department of National Defence?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-411-901 Questions on the Order Paper8555-411-906 Correctional Service of Canada8555-411-907 Museums8555-411-908 Licensing of trademarks8555-411-910 Content removal requests8555-411-911 Awarding of battle honours8555-411-913 Google content removal requests8555-411-914 Jodhan v. Canada (Attorney ...8555-411-915 Government advertising8555-411-918 Programs promoting rights8555-411-919 Government advertising ...Show all topics
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2012-10-18 12:30 [p.11163]
Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening to all the speeches in the House this morning and even some of the questions, especially the question from the member for Malpeque who claimed that he did not trust the CFIA and that he did not have knowledge or information about what was going on.
I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary could inform the member for Malpeque of the website and then maybe the member could go online and get all the information that the Liberal Party seems to be missing when it comes to dealing with this issue.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I must say that when the member for Malpeque made that statement it was both a reckless and unfortunate statement. He is questioning the integrity and the professionalism of the CFIA officials who work so hard to protect food safety for Canadians. It was a very unfortunate comment and I would ask that he retract it because it reflects very poorly on him and on his party.
The member should go to inspection.gc.ca. One of his colleagues said, “We do not know about the 700 new inspectors”. It is on the website. Someone said, “Oh, we do not know about the timeline”. It is on the website. If those members want to know more, they should go to that website.
I would ask the member to retract his statement.
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 664--
Mr. Pierre Jacob:
With respect to ice wine: (a) when does the Canadian Food Inspection Agency intend to decide on the criteria for use of the name “ice wine” as part of amendments related to wine labelling; and (b) what were the reasons for reviewing the regulations concerning use of the name “ice wine”?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, anticipates that the criteria for use of the name “icewine” will be determined in the near future in order to meet the deadline for ratification of the World Wine Trade Group Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labelling, WWTG Agreement.
Once the criteria for the icewine standard have been determined, the CFIA will follow the normal process for regulatory amendments. This will include publishing in Canada Gazette, which would allow Canada to ratify the WWTG Agreement.
In response to (b), Canada is a member of the World Wine Trade Group, WWTG, and a signatory to the WWTG Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labelling. This agreement contains a definition of icewine. In order to place Canada in a position to ratify this agreement, an icewine standard must be regulated and certain wine labelling requirements in Canadian regulations need to be amended.

Question No. 670--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the 2011-2012 budget for the regional development organization for Northern Ontario (FedNor): (a) what is the total amount of its budget; (b) what is the amount actually spent, broken down by FedNor program; (c) what is the amount of the budget that was not spent, and in which programs; (d) were any financial or non-financial incentives offered to managers and executives at FedNor, that were associated with, or dependent on, allocated money not being spent in the fiscal year in question; and (e) were any incentives as outlined in (d) actually awarded, and, if so, (i) to which managers and executives, (ii) what was the sum total of each incentive that was awarded?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the 2011-12 budget for the regional development organization for northern Ontario, FedNor, and in response to (a), the total amount of the budget is $59.28 million, with G&C of $49.25 million and O&M of $10.03 million.
In response to (b) and (c), FedNor’s program expenditures for 2011-12 are just now being finalized with the close of the fiscal year and will be released through the public accounts as is normal.
In response to (d), the answer is no.
In response to (e), it is not applicable.

Question No. 672--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the government’s ongoing plan to reduce the size of the federal public service and specifically the job cuts in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: for each government department and agency, how many jobs have been eliminated or are planned to be eliminated from the beginning of fiscal year 2012-13 to the end of fiscal year 2014-15 including, (i) the title of the position, (ii) the town/city in which the position is located, (iii) the current wage/salary range for the position?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the exact number of job reductions in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot be calculated until all affected organizations have completed their internal union and employee notification processes.
As indicated in budget 2012, federal employment is expected to be reduced by about 19,200 positions, or 4.8%, over a three-year period. Approximately 7,200 of these positions will be reduced through attrition, largely retirement or other voluntary departures.
The government is managing the impact of these spending reductions responsibly, and it will make every effort to manage the employment reductions resulting from the reduction in departmental spending in a manner that treats federal employees fairly and minimizes disruptions to Canadians.

Question No. 673--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to travel by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs between May 2, 2011 and May 2, 2012, for each of the Minister’s trips made in connection with his duties, what were the (i) dates, (ii) destinations and (iii) total expenses?
Response
Hon. Peter Penashue (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office responds that, information regarding travel by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is made available, in accordance with proactive disclosure guidelines, on the following website: http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/di/department_list.asp?id=54&cat=1&lang=eng.

Question No. 674--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the ongoing discussions and negotiations concerning the Canada-EU Trade Agreement and the issue of tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood products: (a) what is the specific proposal put forward by the government concerning any changes to these specific tariffs; and (b) how is the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador represented with the federal government at negotiations concerning the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, including (i) how many representatives are involved from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) in what capacity do they function during the negotiation process?
Response
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, with the EU is a key part of our pro-trade plan that is committed to deepening and broadening our trading relationships. This is critical as trade accounts for over 60% of our annual GDP, and one in five Canadian jobs is directly or indirectly dependent on trade.
The benefits of a Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, are expected to be enormous. According to the EU-Canada joint study, a free trade agreement with the EU is expected to boost Canada’s economy by $12 billion and increase two-way trade by 20%. This is the equivalent of creating almost 80,000 new jobs for hard-working Canadians, or increasing the average Canadian family’s income by almost $1,000. It would also give preferential market access for Canadian workers and businesses to the world’s largest single common market, foreign investor and trader.
A CETA with the EU would deliver commercial benefits across many goods sectors, including aerospace, chemicals, plastics, wood products, aluminum, fish and seafood, light vehicles and automotive parts, and agriculture products such as wheat, beef and pork.
Canada is seeking an outcome in the Canada-EU CETA negotiations that includes the elimination of all tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood. Duty-free access to the EU, the world’s largest importer of fish and seafood products, would offer significant opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador’s fish and seafood industry.
Provinces and territories are unanimous in their support of a CETA with the EU as demonstrated in a February 28, 2012 joint federal-provincial-territorial statement. All Canadian provinces and territories, including Newfoundland and Labrador, are closely involved in the CETA negotiations. This involvement includes frequent meetings with the federal government on planning and strategy, as well as attending negotiating sessions with the EU in areas that fall in whole or in part under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Provincial and territorial officials involved in the CETA negotiations form part of the Canadian delegation. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has several representatives engaged in the negotiations. This includes not only the representatives who attend negotiating sessions with the EU, but also other government officials in various Newfoundland and Labrador government departments who are consulted on different aspects of the negotiations.

Question No. 676--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to the government's funding for the Community Access Program (CAP) that ended on March 31, 2012: (a) how many access sites will be affected; (b) what communities will be affected; (c) how many Canadians will lose access to the program; (d) what is the demographic makeup of the clients who used the sites; (e) what is the demographic makeup of the population that otherwise has limited access to the internet and will be most affected by the termination of the program; (f) how many Canadians will lose their employment as a result of the termination of the program; and (g) what is the total dollar amount that the government intends to save by terminating the program?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government's funding for the community access program, CAP, that ended on March 31, 2012, and in response to (a) and (b), the community access program was launched in 1995 with the objective to encourage participation in the knowledge-based economy by maximizing the accessibility of computers and the Internet at public access points all across Canada. In 1995, only 40% of Canadian households had a computer and only about 10% of these had Internet access. In contrast, in 2010 about 79% of Canadians had access to the Internet at home. Today with the advent of smart phones, many Canadians have such access to the Internet in their hands.
The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of a nationally accessible digital infrastructure and views it as a crucial part of future efforts to ensure that Canada benefits from the global digital economy. In support of that, we have brought broadband access to nearly 218,000 households across Canada through the Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians program. Furthermore, federal funding will continue to support youth internships at community Internet sites. This will provide young Canadians with vital skills and work experience needed to make a successful transition to the workplace. Former CAP-supported sites will continue to be eligible to benefit from this funding.
During fiscal 2011-12, there were 3,830 CAP sites in communities across Canada. As most CAP sites are not dependent exclusively on federal funding, the number of access sites and communities affected remains to be determined. Individual sites will determine the best way forward.
In response to (c), (d) and (e), this information is not available as Industry Canada does not capture usage data of this nature.
In response to (f), very few employees will be affected and Industry Canada is working with them to identify other suitable employment opportunities.
In response to (g), federal funding for the community access program, CAP, ended on March 31, 2012. The total federal funding available for CAP for 2011-12 was $15 million: grants and contributions of $14.1 million and operations and maintenance of $900,000.
Industry Canada will continue to receive $10.1 million in 2012-13 through the federal government’s youth employment strategy in order to continue to fund youth internships. Former CAP-supported sites will continue to be eligible for this funding.

Question No. 677--
Mr. Philip Toone:
With regard to proposed changes to the Fisheries Act outlined in Bill C-38: (a) what plans does the government have for consultation with First Nations on changes to the Fisheries Act, and what are the timelines for the proposed consultations; (b) how will the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) involve First Nations in consultations on any regulations or policies that will emerge from the proposed changes; (c) what resources will be made available to First Nations to enable them to participate in the consultation process; (d) what programs will be made available to facilitate the implementation of the amended Fisheries Act, and will any of these programs be specific to First Nations or other Aboriginal peoples; (e) will changes to the Fisheries Act be retroactively applied to projects currently under environmental assessment, or currently undergoing DFO authorization processes; (f) will there be a transitional phase following the establishment of new legislation, regulations, or policies; (g) what new regulations are planned by the DFO under the framework of the proposed Fisheries Act amendments; (h) how does the DFO intend to define “third-party stakeholders” in section 4.1(1) of the proposed amended Fisheries Act; (i) how does the DFO intend to define “Aboriginal fisheries”; (j) how does the DFO intend to define “serious harm” in section 35(1); (k) how does the DFO intend to determine conditions with respect to the “quantity or concentration” of deleterious substances in s. 36; (l) how does the DFO intend to define the situations under which a Minister may require plans and specifications for activities that are likely to result in serious harm to fish; (m) how does the DFO intend to define ecologically significant areas; (n) does the DFO intend to define “food,” “social,” and “ceremonial” fisheries; (o) how will the DFO engage with the Assembly of First Nations in order to jointly communicate, interpret, and define the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act; and (p) how will the DFO engage with the Assembly of First Nations to facilitate joint dialogues with First Nations communities?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to questions (a) through (d), (g), (o) and (p), on June 29, Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, received royal assent. Amendments to the Fisheries Act were included in Bill C-38. When Bill C-38 was initially tabled in April 2012, Fisheries and Oceans Canada provided information sessions on the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act to provinces, non-governmental organizations, and aboriginal groups. During summer and fall 2012, officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada will engage with these key partners and stakeholders to develop the regulatory and policy framework to support the new and focused direction set out by the changes to the Fisheries Act.
With respect to questions (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (l) (m) and (n), while some terms, such as “serious harm to fish” in section 2(2), and “Aboriginal” fisheries, in section 2(1), are already defined in the amended Fisheries Act, others, such as “ecologically significant areas”, will be defined by regulations or clarified through policies. As various sections of Bill C-38 will come into force at a later date to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, as indicated in section 156, there will be a transitional phase that will provide an opportunity for further work and engagement with key partners and stakeholders.
With respect to question (k), no changes are planned in the way quantity or concentrations are determined.

Question No. 679--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to Canada Economic Development investments in the constituency of Pontiac: (a) how much funding was allocated to the constituency of Pontiac for fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012; (b) what projects were funded; (c) how many businesses from the constituency benefited from this funding; and (d) what were the amounts granted to each project?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) and (c), the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec does not gather data by electoral district for most of its programs. The agency’s financial systems do, however, generate data by city, by municipality or by regional county municipalities, RCMs.
A total of $10,371,273 has been allocated to disclosed projects in the cities or municipalities of every RCM included, in total or in part, within the limits of the electoral district of Pontiac for the period of April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2012. Note that the amounts are generally allocated to projects that go on for more than a year.
A total of 337 businesses benefited from this funding. This total includes businesses that benefited indirectly from this funding through the services provided by the project’s recipients.
In response to (b) and (d), information on the projects financed by the agency can be found on its website at http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/disclosure/grant-contribution-awards/quarters.html.

Question No. 680--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to the upcoming cuts to the public service: (a) how many public servants live in the constituency of Pontiac; (b) of this number, how many are affected by the cuts and are at risk of losing their jobs; and (c) for which departments and agencies do they work?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board Secretariat cannot produce the requested statistics by riding.

Question No. 682--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard the government’s decision to freeze assets of Ben Ali family members living in Canada: (a) on what date were assets of over $2.5 million frozen; (b) under what names were these assets listed; and (c) since March 2012, have any additional assets been frozen, and, if so, (i) what is the nature and value of the additional assets, (ii) on what date were the additional assets frozen?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has taken strong action against the former Ben Ali regime, in particular through the passage of the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act. Bill C-61, introduced on March 3, 2011, gives the government new and more robust tools in our fight against corruption and the misappropriation of state funds by repressive foreign leaders. Under the leadership of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and with the support of all opposition parties, Bill C-61 received royal assent on March 23, 2011.
In response to (a), all the assets located in Canada and belonging to the persons listed in the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials (Tunisia and Egypt) Regulations became subject to freezing on the date the regulations came into force. To this end, 49 names were listed initially on March 23, 2011 and 74 additional names were added on December 16, 2011.
In response to (b), while the government cannot disclose the ownership information for each frozen asset in Canada as these are matters under investigation, the names of the 123 persons whose assets are subject to freezing under the regulations are public and available in schedule 1 of the regulations: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2011-78/page-2.html#h-6.
In response to (c), while the government cannot disclose the details of each case when it freezes assets lest it affect the integrity of investigations, it can confirm that it has disclosed the value and nature of all property frozen to date as previously stated in response to order paper question Q-409, 41st Parliament, First Session, tabled on March 12, 2012. While no additional properties have been frozen since March 2012, the legislative regime ensures that there is an ongoing process whereby assets can be identified, frozen and further investigated. In particular, the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, FACFOA, provides that financial entities as well as Canadians in Canada and outside Canada shall determine and disclose to the RCMP the existence of property in their control and possession that they have reason to believe is the property of a politically exposed foreign person who is the subject of an order or regulation under FACFOA. As such, the legal regime is not static. Assets may be identified and frozen for as long as persons are designated under the regulations.
Items (i) and (ii) are not applicable.

Question No. 683--
Mrs. Maria Mourani:
With regard to the former military base in Saint-Hubert, including the airport: (a) did National Defence and the Canadian Forces use asbestos as insulation or for any other purpose on the former base; (b) has the asbestos been fully removed from these buildings; and (c) if not, which buildings still have asbestos?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), based on building standards of the time, the age of the buildings indicates that asbestos was used in the building construction, particularly in the plumbing for the steam heating systems. Following the relocation of personnel from Canadian Forces Base St. Hubert to Montreal in the 1990s, the Department of National Defence, DND, and the Canadian Forces, CF, disposed of several of the buildings. DND possesses the plans of the buildings still under its responsibility but these do not indicate the remaining areas where asbestos still exists. The policy at the Department of National Defence is to manage asbestos in place. Only when asbestos is disturbed by renovation, demolition or new construction does the department mitigate or remove the material. DND/CF carry out tests before work begins and, if special protection measures are required, they are applied to the letter. This procedure is designed to protect both the contractors and DND/CF employees.
In response to (b), a study is currently under way to identify the locations where contaminants exist, including asbestos, for all buildings at Montreal and St. Hubert garrisons. This study will not be completed for a few years. Pending its findings, the Department of National Defence makes it clear on tendering documents for the contractors and on its employees’ work orders that certain areas may be contaminated. If an assigned task directly concerns an area that is likely to be contaminated, the Department of National Defence requires testing to be done before work can begin.
In response to (c), we are currently awaiting the findings of the study to determine where contaminants, including asbestos, exist.

Question No. 686--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the Auditor General’s Spring 2011 report pertaining to the Canadian Forces Reserve Force’s pension plan and, in particular, the time required to process pension buyback requests: (a) when will the government act on the Auditor General’s recommendations to (i) hire personnel, (ii) train personnel, to process the backlog of requests; (b) when will the government put administrative procedures in place to reduce processing time to six months or less; (c) how will the government improve communication with reservists regarding its policies on pension buyback requests; and (d) what measures are in place to ensure a straightforward and transparent policy?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a)(i) and (ii), since the audit, the Department of National Defence, DND, has obtained additional office space to allow for the hiring and training of staff who will be assigned to process these files. With this additional space, DND has doubled the number of staff processing the backlog of requests to a current staff of 73.
In response to (b), it takes approximately 100 hours to process a file if there are no delays from outside sources.
This response is based on the assumption that the question refers to the current processing time of approximately eight months after retirement for a Canadian Forces member to receive his or her first pension cheque, DND anticipates that the processing time will be reduced to six months or less by the end of fiscal year 2014-15.
It should be noted that the reduction in processingtime does not relate to putting in place administrative procedures designed to streamline the process, but rather is a function of the amount of non-automated years a member wishes to buy back. It is anticipated that by the end of fiscal year 2014-15, all the buy-back files that have service buy-back requests from the 1970s will be completed. Service buy-back requests from the 1960s have already been completed. DND is currently moving ahead to process service buy-back requests from the 1980s and onward. These files can be processed on an average of 80 hours per file instead of the current 100 hours per file for files that go back to the 1970s. As a result, there will be a corresponding reduction in the buy-back backlog that will reduce the average wait time from eight months after retirement to a projected six months, with the eventual goal of two months after retirement once the backlog is eliminated.
In response to (c), DND is moving toward a web-based system of communications. This will allow the department to provide information to its client base in a more streamlined, logical manner that directly meets the needs of the client. It will also ensure that information is both current and relevant.
In addition to the web-based system, a call centre will continue to exist. The call centre is staffed by 10 people who are currently taking upward of 36,000 calls per year.
Moreover, there are many annual stakeholder meetings across the country for the reserves that provide updates on reserve force pension policy and administrative issues, including the buy-back process.
In response to (d), the purchase of prior service is defined by the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and its accompanying regulations. The necessary process information and forms to purchase such service is available on the department's Internet and Intranet sites. As referenced above, the department is moving toward a more streamlined, logical manner of web-based communications that provides current and relevant information to its clients.
DND recognizes the implementation and administration issues included in the Auditor General's spring report and has made progress toward addressing these issues, given the plan's complexity and higher than expected take-up rate within the reserve force. The department is committed to improving and modernizing the delivery of pension benefits to reserve members and has taken a number of steps to improve the current system, including hiring more staff and keeping CF members informed of the status of their files.
Furthermore, the department is proactively informing members of the challenge in processing retirement benefit requests, and that although there might be a delay in receiving benefits, all efforts are being made to accelerate the process.

Question No. 690--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to the “Enabling Accessibility Fund – Mid-Sized Project Component”: (a) what external construction firm handled the application of the Centre Jean Bosco in Maniwaki; (b) what were the names of the experts who handled the Centre’s application; (c) what specific criteria and objectives did the Centre Jean Bosco not meet compared with others whose applications were selected; and (d) did the Centre Jean Bosco successfully pass all stages, including (i) the external construction expert stage, (ii) the internal review committee stage, (iii) the stage of acknowledgement and final decision by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Hanscomb Limited was the external subject matter expert firm that handled the Centre Jean Bosco’s application.
In response to (b), Paul Weatherby from Hanscomb Limited was the external evaluator for the Centre Jean Bosco’s application.
In response to (c), the Centre Jean Bosco met all program criteria and objectives.
In response to (d), the Centre Jean Bosco’s application underwent the following assessment process:
The application was screened for basic program eligibility requirements and for completeness. The Centre Jean Bosco’s application was complete and met the basic program eligibility, and therefore, moved on to the assessment stage of the process.
The application was assessed by program officials against program objectives and other requirements. The Centre Jean Bosco’s application met the minimum score and was sent to an external subject matter expert who specialized in construction to identify whether the costs and scope of the proposal were reasonable.
Following the results from the external evaluator’s assessment, the proposal was further reviewed by an internal review committee to verify the appropriateness of the scoring and outcomes of the overall assessment. As a result of the combination of both the internal and external assessment, the Centre Jean Bosco’s application was not one of the top ranked projects and was therefore not recommended for funding.
In response to (i), the external assessment was part of the overall assessment process for applications that met the minimum internal score; it was not a stage in itself. Applications that were assessed by the external expert firm, including Centre Jean Bosco’s application, did not pass or fail this particular aspect of the process. The outcome, rating, of the external assessment was counted as part of the final score of the project proposal.
In response to (ii), the internal review committee reviewed the scoring and outcomes of the overall assessment. As a result of the combination of both the internal and external assessment, the Centre Jean Bosco’s application was not one of the top ranked projects. Applications did not pass or fail this stage of the assessment process. They were ranked based on the result of the assessment process, and funding recommendations were made based on the project score and availability of funding.
In response to (iii), only the top ranked projects could be considered for funding based on availability of program funds. As the Centre Jean Bosco’s application was not one of the top ranked projects, it was not recommended for funding to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Question No. 694--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to government communications: (a) what was the cost of (i) producing, (ii) printing, (iii) distributing an insert concerning Old Age Security (OAS) policies, distributed with OAS cheques or stubs in the spring of 2012; (b) what was the purpose of the insert; and (c) was the distribution complete to all OAS recipients, and, if not, what was the geographical or other distribution, and how was that distribution determined?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, extraordinary efforts were made to communicate with Canadians regarding the old age security, OAS, age change given its importance. Communicating with Canadians is a fundamental responsibility of the Government of Canada.
Following the release of budget 2012, inserts to existing mail-outs and letters were sent to seniors and near seniors who will not be affected by the change to the OAS age of eligibility. The change to the age of eligibility represents a significant change to our retirement income system and needs to be well understood by all Canadians, whether they will be directly affected or not. By proactively communicating through these notices, the government wished to avoid creating needless apprehension among current OAS and Canada pension plan, CPP, recipients, as well as minimize the number of enquiries to Service Canada.
In response to (a), two main products to communicate the OAS changes were sent to seniors and near seniors following the budget 2012 announcement.
A cheque insert was sent to ensure awareness among OAS/CPP beneficiaries who receive their payment by mail that they would not be affected by the OAS age change. Inserts were printed and issued in May and June 2012, at a cost of approximately $29,900. The inserts were a low cost distribution mechanism since they were included in existing mail-outs and therefore did not result in any additional distribution costs.
In addition to the insert in the question, in order to ensure that all OAS and CPP recipients were aware of the OAS age change, a letter from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, HRSD, was sent immediately after the budget 2012 announcement to inform all OAS and CPP recipients of the increase to the age of eligibility and to reassure them that they would not be affected. Production and mailing of these letters cost $4,384,750 and was sent to over 6.3 million Canadians. Only one letter was sent to people who receive both CPP and OAS.
In response to (b), the cheque insert and the letter were produced to proactively inform OAS and CPP recipients of the increase to the OAS age of eligibility from 65 to 67, including what it could mean for them. The products also pointed them toward the www.servicecanada.gc.ca/retirement site for more information on the proposed changes.
By proactively communicating with Canadians, the government wished to avoid creating unnecessary anxiety among those not affected and minimize the number of enquiries to Service Canada.
In response to (c), the cheque insert was distributed to approximately one million OAS/CPP recipients who have opted to receive their payments by mail. The insert was sent to these individuals in both May and June with a total distribution of two million. This was sent as part of an already scheduled regular mail-out to approximately nine per cent of all OAS recipients and twelve per cent of CPP recipients.
The letter from the Minister of HRSD was sent to all OAS and CPP recipients, which is approximately 6.3 million individuals, to ensure almost 100% coverage of all current OAS and CPP recipients.
By using these two main distribution methods, the government ensured close to 100% coverage in informing seniors about the change.

Question No. 695--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC): (a) what is the nature of LAC's participation, if any, in the 2012 Canadian Library Association's conference of May 30 to June 2, 2012, in Ottawa, Ontario; (b) how many LAC (i) librarians, (ii) other staff members attended the conference; and (c) if no LAC librarians or staff attended the conference, why was this the case?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), with regard to the 2012 Canadian Library Association’s, CLA, recent annual conference in Ottawa, Library and Archives Canada, LAC, was involved as the main Government of Canada partner for the event. More specifically, the Deputy Head and Librarian and Archivist of Canada, Dr. Daniel J. Caron, was the keynote speaker at the conference’s opening session. Other LAC subject matter experts took part in the event’s broader technical program. LAC also was present at the conference trade show with its corporate kiosk. LAC also organized guided tours for CLA conference delegates who were given an opportunity to visit the Gatineau preservation centre in Gatineau, Quebec, and the nitrate film preservation facility at Shirley’s Bay, Ottawa, Ontario. In response to (b), a total of 20 LAC staff members attended the conference.
In response to (b)(i), 11 were librarians or persons employed in library science related functions by LAC.
In response to (b)(ii), nine were LAC employees whose duties are broader within the library and archival aspects of the institution’s mandate. Part (c) is not applicable.

Question No. 696--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), how many requests has LAC received from Senators, Members of Parliament, or their offices or staff representatives, since January 1, 2006, for: (a) research materials; (b) access to published library materials; and (c) access to archival materials?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the legislative provisions covering the collection and use of personal information, Library and Archives Canada does not compile data relating to the occupation of its clients. It is, therefore, impossible to respond to this question.

Question No. 698--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With respect to the negotiation of a tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement with Liechtenstein: (a) on what date did Canada enter into negotiations with Liechtenstein for this agreement; (b) what departments are responsible for negotiation and implementation of the agreement; (c) on what date will the negotiations be completed; (d) on what date will the agreement be implemented; and (e) prior to these negotiations, had the government ever approached Liechtenstein about negotiating a tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), negotiations for a tax information exchange agreement (TIEA) with Liechtenstein commenced in July 2010.
In response to (b), the Department of Finance has the lead responsibility for the negotiation of Canada’s TIEAs, in collaboration with the Canada Revenue Agency. The Department of Finance has the lead responsibility for the implementation of Canada’s TIEAs, in collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Justice.
In response to (c), negotiations are ongoing. For an update on negotiations, please visit www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/tieraaerf-eng.asp.
In response to (d), in Canada, once a TIEA is signed, it must follow the government’s policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament. Under this process, a TIEA is required to be tabled in the House of Commons for a 21 sitting day period. Since no other legislative or regulatory steps are required for Canada to meet its obligations under a TIEA, once that period is completed, Canada is in a position to notify the other state of the completion of its internal procedures for the entry into force of the TIEA. A TIEA usually enters into force when both states have sent such a notification.
In response to (e), Canada had notified Liechtenstein regarding its interest to negotiate a TIEA in 2009.

Question No. 699--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With respect to answers to written questions pertaining to possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein and Switzerland, why did provisions of the “Canada-France Income Tax Convention” preclude the government from answering written questions on the Order Paper regarding possible tax evasion in Switzerland, but the “Agreement Between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany for the Avoidance of Double taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and Certain Other Taxes, the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion and the Assistance in Tax Matters” did not prevent the government from answering identical written questions on the Order Paper regarding possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada received information from the Government of France pertaining to accounts in Switzerland through an international treaty.
The information received regarding Canadians with offshore accounts in Liechtenstein was not received through such an exchange with the Federal Republic of Germany but through an avenue outside Canada’s tax treaties and agreements.
Information is often provided to the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, from various sources on the basis that it cannot be further disclosed by the CRA. Where the CRA is at liberty to provide information, it will endeavour to do so. In other instances, it will be limited in this ability. The CRA has an obligation to follow confidentiality and privacy legislation closely.
In order to both respect confidentiality requirements and maintain harmonious international relations, the CRA must adhere to the requirements that international tax treaties and agreements impose on the disclosure of information received from Canada’s treaty partners; to do otherwise could result in negative consequences to the effective exchange of information.

Question No. 702--
Ms. Charmaine Borg:
With regard to the 700 MHz Spectrum Auction: (a) has the Minister of Industry announced his intent to set aside a portion of the auction proceeds to deliver high-speed Internet access to rural and remote regions; and (b) does the Minister have a plan to introduce measures that would provide for the health of Canadian telecommunications companies in the face of new regulations allowing foreign telecommunications companies with less than 10% of the market to enter the Canadian market for the first time?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, With regard to the 700 megahertz spectrum auction and in response to (a), proceeds from wireless spectrum auctions go to the government’s consolidated revenue fund.
The government is applying specific measures, rollout requirements, in the 700 megahertz spectrum auction to see that Canadians in rural areas have access to the same advanced wireless services as everyone else in a timely manner.
The government relies primarily on market forces to extend broadband Internet access to Canadians. The private sector continues to invest to expand and increase the speeds of broadband networks, with $8.4 billion in capital expenditures in 2010. In areas where there has not been a business case for the private sector to deliver broadband Internet services on its own, the approach has been to use targeted initiatives to extend broadband to unserved areas. For instance, the broadband Canada program, BCP, contributed significant investments to projects to expand broadband service to nearly 220,000 unserved and underserved households. BCP projects are expected to be completed in the summer of 2012.
In response to (b), the government is reforming foreign investment restrictions in the telecommunications sector in order to provide greater access to capital and expertise for the companies that need it the most. This is especially the case for new wireless companies that are providing more choices to Canadian families and businesses. This reform is one component of the government’s actions to sustain competition and strong investment in this sector, and the availability of the latest telecommunications technologies for all Canadians.
The three largest telecommunications firms that control more than 90% of the telecommunications sector will still be required to be Canadian controlled.

Question No. 704--
Ms. Mylène Freeman:
With regard to the Maurice Lamontagne Institute: (a) how many jobs will be eliminated as a result of the recent budget cuts; (b) how much severance will the affected employees receive; (c) which departments did these employees work for; (d) how many employees will be transferred to another part of the country as a result of the recent budget cuts; (e) where will those employees be transferred to; (f) how much will the transferred employees receive in moving and other allowances; (g) what departments were these employees part of; (h) when was the Institute’s work last evaluated or reviewed; and (i) what was the outcome of the evaluation or review?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, until departmental managers have had a chance to complete their review of the budget 2012 measures and consider the results on their programs, it is undetermined how many employees will receive surplus and opting letters. The department’s goal is to address reductions to the greatest extent possible through attrition, deployment, planned retirement and other staffing mechanisms.
In response to (b), Fisheries and Oceans Canada will ensure that workforce adjustment provisions and relevant collective agreements are respected. .
In response to (c) and (g), these employees at Maurice Lamontagne Institute work for Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
In response to (d), until managers have had a chance to complete their review of the measures and consider the results on their programs, it is unclear how many employees will receive surplus and opting letters. Further, it is not known whether employees from the Maurice Lamontagne Institute will need to be relocated.
In response to (e), as described above in the response to (d), decisions about relocating employees have not been made.
In response to (f), Fisheries and Oceans Canada will ensure that the Treasury Board Secretariat travel policies and National Joint Council Relocation Directive are respected.
In response to (h) and (i), the Office of the Auditor General and the department’s evaluation directorate conduct evaluations of departmental programs. However, the institute’s work is not evaluated on its own, as it supports various departmental programs.
The Office of the Auditor General of Canada produces a variety of reports and publications on behalf of the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. For more information, please see the Office of the Auditor General website http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/rp_fs_e_44.html. Similarly, the department publishes audit and evaluation reports on the department’s website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/evaluations-eng.htm.

Question No. 707--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to the Department of National Defence's preparation for the Auditor General of Canada's 2012 Spring Report: (a) how many meetings were held on the issue of the F-35s; and (b) who attended these meetings and what are their (i) titles, (ii) responsibilities?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces searched calendar records of the deputy minister, associate deputy minister, and group principals responsible for aspects of the F-35 file and included information in this response based on those records. Records were searched from the time that the contents of the Auditor General’s chapter 2 on the CF-18 replacement was provided to the department for comment to the date that the Auditor General’s spring 2012 report was tabled on April 3, 2012. Records for approximately 67 meetings held on the F-35 were found.
In response to (b), no attendance was taken at these meetings.

Question No. 710--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ consolidation of six financial support offices to Fredericton, New Brunswick: (a) in what specific communities or cities are the six offices presently located; (b) when was the final decision to move the six offices made; (c) what was the specific rationale for each individual office’s consolidation to Fredericton; (d) for each individual office, how much will it cost to consolidate to Fredericton; (e) for each individual office, what is the nature of the projected costs as identified in (d); (f) what specific costs versus savings led to the determination that $2 million would be saved; (g) what type of assessment was done when deciding on the closures; (h) what consultations were held with the communities or offices affected; (i) what analysis was done of the impact this consolidation would have on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; (j) what is the impact on the regions affected; (k) how many jobs will be lost as a result of the consolidation; (l) what are the jobs that will be lost as a result of the consolidation; (m) what is the specific location of each job loss; (n) what are the jobs that will be moved out of each specific office; (o) how many current employees are expected to move to Fredericton; (p) how was Fredericton chosen to be the location of the consolidation; and (q) what are the file numbers and titles of any files associated with the consolidation?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the department currently provides internal financial services from the national headquarters, based in Ottawa, and six regions including Newfoundland and Labrador, Maritimes, Gulf, Quebec, Central and Arctic, and Pacific Region. These regions have financial services employees in the following cities: St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; Moncton, New Brunswick; Mont-Joli, Quebec; Québec, Quebec; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Burlington, Ontario; Parry Sound, Ontario; Prescott, Ontario; Ottawa, Ontario; Sarnia, Ontario; Vancouver, British Columbia; Victoria, British Columbia; and Kamloops, British Columbia.
In response to (b), the decision was part of Budget 2012.
In response to (c), as part of the government’s commitment to reducing spending, the consolidation of internal financial services will be streamlining back-office services into one location.
In response to (d), (e), (f), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), and (o), until departmental managers have had a chance to complete their review of the measures and consider the results on their programs, the department is unable to provide this information. The department’s goal is to address reductions to the greatest extent possible through attrition, deployment, planned retirement, and other staffing mechanisms.
In response to (g), (h), and (i), assessments were performed to streamline back-office services to ensure efficiency and consistency of business processes. Consultations were held with the management team of the department which includes representation of the department in offices affected.
In response to (p), the location was selected with the following considerations: proximity to provincial government which could serve as a potential pool of qualified candidates; and a sufficient pool of bilingual workers.
In response to (q), this initiative is referred to as the Consolidation of Internal Financial and Administrative Services

Question No. 711--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) what programs and services are operated by the department, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to present; (b) for each program and service identified in (a), what is the total budget allotted; (c) for each program identified in (a), what is (i) the number of applications received, (ii) the number of applications rejected, (iii) the number of applications accepted, (iv) the rationale for the decision to accept or reject each application; (d) for all applications identified in (c)(iii), what is the amount of funding granted and which services were offered to the applicant; (e) for each program and service identified in (a), what is the province or region affected; and (f) what is the current status of each of the programs identified in (a)?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this is a complex request and the time needed to respond would entail research and analysis in the department’s grants and contributions information management system, as well as in its financial system. The report produced would contain approximately 2,300 pages, and certain pages would require translation. We estimate that this request would require the services of four resource persons from both financial services and informatics services, for a total of eight weeks of full-time work, 300 hours, or $11,940 in salary.
Information on grants and contributions greater than $25,000, awarded from January 1, 2006 onwards, is posted on the departmental website at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/dp-pd/sc-gc/index-eng.cfm Information on Canadian Heritage programs and services can be found on the department’s website at http://www.pch.gc.ca

Question No. 712--
Hon. John McCallum:
With respect to the government’s Strategic and Operating Review what, including detailed citations or references, is every rule, regulation, law, standing order or provision of a collective bargaining agreement that prevents the disclosure of the details of the Review?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government will use existing reporting mechanisms to report on both planned and actual savings at a whole-of-government and departmental level.
At the whole-of-government level, this includes information released through the budget, the estimates, and financial results released in the monthly Fiscal Monitor and the Public Accounts of Canada.
At the departmental level, the suite of reports includes planning information contained in the reports on plans and priorities, and actual expenditure information contained in the departmental performance reports and the quarterly financial reports.

Question No. 715--
Mr. Alex Atamanenko:
With regard to the government's review and analysis of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa: (a) what studies has the government undertaken or reviewed pertaining to the potential economic impact of the introduction of GE alfalfa in Canada; (b) what actions has the government taken as a result of these findings; and (c) is the government assessing whether to carry out a comprehensive study of the potential economic impacts of GE alfalfa on Canada's various agricultural and food sectors?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Canada has one of the most stringent and rigorous regulatory systems in the world, in which safety is the number one priority. This extends to crops or foods that are modified or contain genetic modification—all of which must undergo a comprehensive, science-based approval process involving both Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA. Canada’s regulatory system for products of agricultural biotechnology is designed so that every possible precaution is taken. The safety of new products is carefully and cautiously assessed before these products can be cultivated by a grower, used in livestock feed, or made available to the consumer.
Genetically engineered, GE, Roundup Ready®, RR, alfalfa received food, feed, and environmental safety authorizations in 2005. However, other regulatory steps would be required before RR alfalfa could be fully commercialized in Canada. For example, all new varieties of alfalfa are subject to variety registration. To date, no variety of RR alfalfa has been registered in Canada.
Socio-economic factors, such as the potential market impacts of the introduction of these technologies, are not taken into account during the regulatory decision-making process. Once a GE crop has been approved for environmental release and other appropriate regulatory approvals are in place, it is considered to be like any other commodity crop.
In response to (b), as noted above, socio-economic factors, such as the potential market impacts of the introduction of these technologies, are not taken into account during the regulatory decision-making process. The government is committed to maintaining our rigorous, science-based assessment process to protect human and animal health and the environment while benefiting from the advances brought by these technologies.
In response to (c), the government is aware of and responsive to concerns expressed by various industry groups about market impacts should RR alfalfa be commercialized in Canada, and has provided support to the industry to help assess potential market impacts. For instance, in 2011, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada provided funding through its Canadian agricultural adaptation program for a study entitled “Assessing the Potential Impact of Roundup Ready Alfalfa on Canada’s Forage Industry”. The study, commissioned by the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association, CFGA, in partnership with the Saskatchewan Forage Council, undertook an unbiased, fact-based assessment of the emerging issue of RR alfalfa. The intent of the report is to encourage dialogue concerning GE technologies in forages. The final report on this study was published on June 13, 2012, and is available on the CFGA website at http://www.canadianfga.ca/research-projects/completed-projects/.
The government is also dedicated to developing markets, and recognizes that co-operation throughout the value chain is a critical aspect of protecting markets. Commodity groups such as those representing canola and soybean have enjoyed tremendous success by working collaboratively, from product developer, to grower, to seed supplier, to grain handler, toward ensuring that segregation strategies are in place or importing markets are secured before seeking approvals for any new technology.
Further, the government provides support to a series of industry-led, value chain round tables, VCRTs, to enhance Canadian competitiveness and profitability. The VCRTs are sector-specific and bring together industry representatives from across the value chain—from input suppliers, producers, and processors to retailers and traders—with federal and provincial government decision makers. The VCRTs focus on the individual needs of each value chain and are an important mechanism to share information, identify sector strengths and weaknesses, identify current and future requirements for the sector, and co-operate on long-term strategies.
The Government of Canada believes that industry is best positioned to understand and respond to market demands and opportunities. Members of various value chains, including those representing organics, seeds, and grains, are encouraged to engage in active dialogue to establish the best path forward for the commercialization of RR alfalfa.

Question No. 716--
Mr. Alex Atamanenko:
With regard to the government's approval and analysis of the safety of genetically engineered corn for human consumption: (a) how does the government’s policy address the need to restrict the use of genetically engineered (GE) traits to non-sweetcorn varieties and/or request a new data package submission in order to evaluate the safety of GE traits in sweetcorn, given the fact that GE traits were initially approved for use in corn before GE sweetcorn varieties were commercialized, and based on assumptions of consumption patterns dominated by processed corn products and animal feed, versus consumption of sweetcorn as a fresh vegetable; (b) what studies or analysis has the government undertaken or reviewed pertaining to the question of human health effects from eating GE sweetcorn; and (c) will the government carry out a re-evaluation of GE traits for use in sweetcorn?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians. To this end, Canada has one of the most stringent and rigorous regulatory systems in the world. Under the Food and Drugs Act, Health Canada is responsible for provisions related to public health, food safety, and nutrition. This includes the establishment of science-based policies and standards to ensure that all foods, including genetically modified, GM, or genetically engineered, foods are safe and nutritious. The Novel Foods Regulations require that notification be made to Health Canada by the company wanting to sell a novel food product, including food that is genetically modified or genetically engineered, prior to its marketing or advertising. This pre-market notification ensures that the safety of each novel food is assessed and verified before it can enter the Canadian marketplace.
GM foods are only approved after Health Canada’s scientists are satisfied that the data provided by the applicant addresses all health and safety concerns and meets regulatory requirements. The safety assessment includes exposure estimates based on consumption of all food products derived from the GM variety. In the case of GM corn, this includes normal routes of exposure such as direct consumption of kernels. Should evaluators determine that the data is not sufficient, additional information and/or testing would be requested from the applicant in order to fully demonstrate the safety of the product. Only when all the scientists evaluating the GM food product agree that there are no safety concerns would the food be permitted in the Canadian marketplace. To date, all GM foods that have been approved in Canada, including all of the approved GM corn varieties, were found to be as safe and as nutritious as their non-modified counterparts.
The specific criteria for the safety assessment of such foods are outlined in the Health Canada publication Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods. These guidelines are based upon scientific principles developed through expert international consultation with agencies such as the World Health Organization, WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , OECD. This approach is also consistent with other regulatory agencies around the world including those of members of the European Union, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, and the United States.
It should be noted that sweet corn is from the same species as field corn, i.e., Zea mays. It only differs from field corn in that it has been bred to contain higher sugar content. Field corn, which usually undergoes processing prior to consumption, e.g., manufacturing of cornstarch, constitutes the majority of GM corn varieties approved in Canada. However, once a GM corn line has been approved in Canada, plant breeders may use the GM line in their breeding programs. Therefore, it is not unusual to transfer traits from field corn to sweet corn, given that they are the same species. However, if a “new” novel trait is introduced when an approved GM corn is bred with other corn varieties, including sweet corn, the developer is required to contact Health Canada; in other words, when the crossbreeding results in changes to characteristics that fall well outside the agronomic, nutritional, and compositional range expected for that variety. The onus is on the developer to ensure that no novel traits have been introduced into the plant, and to notify Health Canada in the event that a novel trait is produced as a result of their breeding programs. If such a trait were found, the new variety would need to undergo the pre-market assessment process as described above. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency ensures compliance with the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations including that only those foods, in this case, derived from GM crops, that satisfy the requirements of Division 28 of the Food and Drug Regulations, i.e., approved by Health Canada, are available for sale in Canada.
Health Canada takes any new information related to regulated products very seriously. Scientists in the department are continually reviewing published studies to ensure the continued safety of the Canadian public. The decisions that the government has taken to date have stood the test of time. Since these products were introduced on the Canadian market, over 18 years ago, there has been no evidence which has necessitated a change. Please be assured that should Health Canada review any study or become aware of any information that demonstrates a health or safety concern with these products, we would take immediate action to ensure the safety of the Canadian food supply, including revocation of Health Canada’s approval should the scientific evidence support such a decision.

Question No. 718--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the government’s policy on seeking clemency for Canadians sentenced to death abroad: (a) under what circumstances will the government seek clemency; (b) when was the current policy adopted; (c) who proposed the current policy; and (d) how was it adopted?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), a Canadian citizen facing the prospect of the death penalty (or an authorized representative acting on his/her behalf) may apply to the Government of Canada for clemency intervention. Requests for clemency are assessed on a case-by-case basis using criteria based on Canadian values and international standards. A non-exhaustive list of criteria that may be taken into consideration is posted on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website: http://www.voyage.gc.ca/documents/clemency_clemence-eng.asp.
In response to (b), (c), and (d), as has been previously reported, the Government of Canada adopted the current clemency policy and it was applied as of July 2009.

Question No. 721--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to the closing of Kingston Penitentiary, the Regional Treatment Centre and the Leclerc Institution, for each of these three facilities: (a) what is the estimated total savings in annual costs that occur as a result of the closure; (b) what methodology was used to arrive at the figure in (a); (c) what input data was used to arrive at the figure in (a); (d) how was this data collected; (e) what are the estimated costs for transferring the inmates to other facilities; (f) what are the estimated costs for transferring employees from the above institutions to new institutions, including but not limited to annualised capital costs of construction, staffing costs and operation and maintenance costs; (g) for those employees who will not be transferred, what if any retirement initiatives will be offered and what is the total estimated costs of these initiatives; (h) what are all the total estimated costs of incarcerating the inmates at other facilities who would have been held at each of the three facilities slated for closure; and (i) what are the true net savings to the government once the total costs of holding the inmates at other facilities are taken into account?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the closures of Kingston Penitentiary, including the Regional Treatment Centre, in Kingston, Ontario and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec will result in an overall cost savings of approximately $120 million per year.
In response to (b), (c), and (d), the closures of two federal prisons, Kingston Penitentiary, including the Regional Treatment Centre, in Kingston, Ontario and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec will result in an overall cost savings of approximately $120 million. More precisely, Correctional Service of Canada’s, CSC, budget will be $120 million less at the end of implementation. This reflects the savings from salaries, operating, and maintenance, as well as savings realized from the addition of new cells.
In response to (e) and (h), CSC has a comprehensive plan to safely move offenders impacted by these closures to other institutions. Many institutions in the Ontario Region are undergoing infrastructure expansions to better manage the complex and diverse offender population.
Maximum-security inmates will remain maximum-security inmates and be placed in appropriate facilities at this level. The same will apply for medium-security inmates. The Ontario Region’s Assessment Unit will be moved out of Millhaven Institution, thereby increasing the maximum-security capacity of this institution. Maximum-security inmates will be transferred either to Millhaven Institution or to a new maximum-security unit at Collins Bay Institution. Medium-security inmates currently incarcerated at the Regional Treatment Centre will be transferred to Bath Institution, a medium-security institution located on the same penitentiary property as Millhaven Institution. A new medium security unit is being built within the perimeter of Bath Institution (capacity 96 cells).
Where appropriate, CSC may consider voluntary transfers of offenders to other regions.
For security reasons, CSC cannot divulge details relating to a specific offender’s movement. The transfer of these offenders will be done with the utmost consideration for the safety and security of the community. CSC is unable to comment on any associated costs during the transition leading to the closures of the institutions.
In response to (f), these initiatives will result in approximately 1,000 full-time employees being affected within Ontario and Quebec. However, the majority of affected staff will be redeployed to other facilities. Employees whose jobs are affected will be treated with fairness and respect, and in accordance with workforce adjustment agreements that have been negotiated with public sector unions. Pursuant to obligations under the Work Force Adjustment Directive, CSC is committed to maximizing employment opportunities for indeterminate employees affected by workforce adjustment situations.
CSC has a comprehensive plan to accommodate staff impacted by these closures to other institutions. However, during the transition leading to the closures of the institutions, CSC is unable to comment on the related estimated costs.
In response to (g), in July 2012, affected CX staff were met by CSC management and a union representative in order to select a location to be deployed to from the national vacancy list. Affected CX employees who intend to retire on or before October 31, 2013, and provide written confirmation of same will not be required to select a position from the vacancy list.
There will not be any incentives/options for retirement. CSC is dealing with each union individually.
In response to (i), CSC’s budget will be net $120 million less at the end of the implementation of this reduction.

Question No. 723--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to the Department of National Defence, how many reports were sent to the Minister and Associate Minister regarding the cost of the F-35 fighter jet and what are the names of those reports?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there have been two reports sent to the Minister of National Defence and/or the Associate Minister of National Defence regarding the cost of the F-35.
The titles of these documents are as follows: 2012 U.S. Government Accountability Office Report on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

Question No. 725--
Hon. Gerry Byrne :
With regard to the Minister of National Defence, not including any activity that would be considered a cabinet confidence, since January 1, 2012: (a) what is the date, time, location and nature of all government business conducted by the Minister; (b) what means of transportation did the Minister use the attend each event; and (c) who accompanied the Minister to each event?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed a Federal Court decision concluding that a minister, unlike a public servant or Canadian Forces member, is not an officer of a government institution for the purposes of paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act. See Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2011 SCC 25, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 306. As a result, information about the Minister of National Defence that appears on his agenda is considered personal information and is protected by section 19 of the Access to Information Act.
However, much information regarding government business conducted by the Minister of National Defence is made publicly available on the departmental website. News releases, media advisories, and statements can be found at the following web link: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp.
Information falling under the proactive disclosure policy relating to travel and hospitality expenses of the Minister of National Defence and those travelling with him, including the Associate Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, ministerial exempt staff, and senior-level employees at the deputy minister, chief of the defence staff, assistant deputy minister, and equivalent levels, is also in the public domain and can be accessed at the following link: www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/pd-dp/index-eng.asp.

Question No. 727--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the Minister of National Defence, how many Blackberrys have been issued to him since August 14, 2007?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has not issued any BlackBerrys to the Minister of National Defence since August 14, 2007.

Question No. 728--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to weapons-grade uranium (WGU), since February 6, 2006, to what countries has the government authorized the export of WGU and what quantities have been exported to each country?
Response
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, highly enriched uranium, HEU, is uranium enriched beyond 20% in the isotope uranium-235. HEU is only considered weapons-grade uranium when it has been enriched to 90% or above in the isotope U 235.
Canada does not produce HEU. Rather, it is imported for specialized civilian nuclear use and may be returned to its country of origin or exported in very small quantities. In keeping with Canadian nuclear non proliferation policy, these exports are solely for peaceful, non-explosive purposes. Canadian imports and exports of HEU have been for civilian use and have not been associated with a weapons program.
Since February 6, 2006, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has authorized the export of 50.4 kilograms of HEU. Only two countries were the recipients of this material: the United States of America and Austria, the location of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, headquarters. The exact cumulative quantities sent to each country between February 6, 2006, and May 31, 2012, are as follows:
A total of 50.34 kilograms was sent to the U.S.A.: 4.33 kilograms contained within a spent fuel assembly from the McMaster University Research Reactor and the decommissioning of the Dalhousie University SLOWPOKE reactor were being returned for storage and surveillance;46.0 kilograms of U.S.A. origin HEU were being repatriated as part of the global threat reduction initiative, originally imported to Canada for use in research reactor fuel assemblies; and 0.013 kilograms contained within fission chambers were sent for repair to the U.S.A.
A total of 0.064 kilograms was sent to Austria, IAEA: 0.0023 kilograms HEU contained within a fission chamber was being returned to Vienna following its use by IAEA inspectors in their safeguards program for Candu reactors; and 0.062 kilograms were sent as small samples selected by IAEA inspectors for verification and analysis following inspections of Canadian nuclear reactor facilities.

Question No. 733--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what is the current expenditure for wild Atlantic salmon in the categories of (i) management, (ii) research/assessment, (iii) enhancement/habitat, (iv) enforcement; (b) what is the detailed and complete breakdown of the $12 million noted in the Wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Policy; and (c) what are the current expenditures for Atlantic salmon aquaculture, broken down for the east coast, Ottawa headquarters, and the west coast?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a)(i), fisheries management, $931, 500 per year. This does not include figures for Quebec.
In response to (ii), the following numbers are estimates for fiscal year 2011-12, given that the department’s funding is often based on broader, horizontal programs rather than individual species, such as Atlantic salmon: $4,547,000 for research and assessment; $1,167,000 for species at risk.
In response to (iii), the habitat program is not managed on a species-by-species basis. Consequently, it is impossible for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to provide the current expenditures specific to wild Atlantic salmon (a)(iii) enhancement/habitat. The program does operate in all four Atlantic provinces and Quebec, where wild Atlantic salmon are found, and does carry on work to protect and conserve this species, along with other species of importance.
In response to (iv), $5.7 million.
In response to (b), note that these figures were provided as working estimates during development of the policy and should not be considered complete or accurate. For fiscal year 2004-05, these are estimates of spending by DFO and do not include any provincial spending: management, $200,200; international, $198,100; research/assessment, including habitat science, $6,216,200; enhancement/habitat, $804,700; enforcement, $3,177,700; aboriginal fisheries, $684,000; species at risk office, $7,400; real property, $1,186,000. The total is $12,474,300.
In response to (c), the department's financial tracking does not allow for species specific recording of aquaculture funding.

Question No. 736--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to the snowmobile protests that took place in Terra Nova National Park between January 2010 and December 2011 and all events and circumstances related to these protests, what are the details of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, or other written material pertaining to these events?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, a breakdown of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, and other written material pertaining to the snowmobile protests that took place in Terra Nova National Park between January 2010 and December 2011 is as follows: 10 briefing notes, 218 emails, 20 internal action plans, 2 internal recommendations, 22 ministerial correspondence, 1 letter, and 12 other written material.

Question No. 743--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to Status of Women Canada: (a) in the recent federal budget, were there cuts to Status of Women Canada and, if so, did those cuts affect the Women’s Program in terms of personnel or funding for projects; (b) are the PDF files of the reports of completed Women’s Program projects still available on Status of Women Canada website and, if so, where are they, (i) if they are not available, why not; and (c) are the summaries of the results of the current and past Women’s Program competitions still available on the Status of Women Canada website and, if not, why, (i) if yes, where are they?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), no cuts were made to Status of Women Canada as a result of the recent federal budget.
In response to (b), PDF files of final reports of completed women’s program projects have never been posted on the Status of Women Canada website.
In response to (c), results of women’s program calls for proposals are posted on the Status of Women Canada website as they become available either through news releases or through proactive disclosure of grant and contribution awards.

Question No. 744--
Mr. Philip Toone:
With regard to the closure of and budget cuts at Fisheries and Oceans laboratories in Sidney, British Columbia; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Burlington, Ontario; Mont-Joli, Québec; Moncton, New Brunswick; and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: (a) how many full-time, part-time and contract jobs were lost as a result of these closures and cuts, broken down by laboratory; (b) how much is being saved as a result of these closures and cuts, broken down by laboratory; (c) will the jobs referred to in (a) be transferred elsewhere in Canada; (d) what research will stop as a result of these closures and cuts; (e) will the laboratories’ chemical pollution monitoring and research activities be carried out elsewhere in Canada, (i) if so, by which organizations and how much funding will those organizations receive, (ii) if not, what is the rationale for ending those activities; and (f) will research in ecotoxicology and environmental chemistry be carried out elsewhere in Canada following these closures and cuts, (i) if so, by which organizations and how much funding will those organizations receive, (ii) if not, what is the rationale for ending those activities?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), managers are continuing to analyze the results of the measures on their programs, including the human resource impacts. As a result, it is not yet clear exactly how many employees will receive surplus and opting letters. It remains the Department’s goal to address reductions to the greatest extent possible through attrition, deployment, planned retirement and other staffing mechanisms.
With regard to (b), the forecasted savings for Fisheries and Oceans Canada as a result of the strategic and operating review are approximately $79.3 million by 2014-15.
With regard to (c), in lieu of in-house research on the biological effects of contaminants, the department will establish an advisory group to ensure departmental priorities are met. The five-member advisory group will be located regionally, with three advisors in Winnipeg, Manitoba, one advisor on the east coast, and one advisor on the west coast.
With regard to (d), in lieu of in-house research on the biological effects of contaminants, the department will establish an advisory group.
With regard to (e) and (f)(i), the newly established advisory group will manage a research fund of close to $1.4 million to obtain scientific information from academia and independent facilities on the biological effects of contaminants.
The advisory group will begin undertaking its functions over the course of this fiscal year. In the months ahead, advisory group members will begin engaging experts from the academic community and other independent facilities.

Question No. 747--
Ms. Annick Papillon:
With regard to the anticipated one-time costs of closing the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in Quebec City (MRSC Quebec), and the merger of MRSC Quebec with the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax (JRCC Halifax) and the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Trenton (JRCC Trenton), what is the total cost of: (a) merging MRSC Quebec with JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (b) the new training that will be given at JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton, including language training and the overtime required to replace employees taking training; (c) moving to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (d) the necessary upgrades to JRCC Halifax and JRCC Trenton; (e) payments to employees who decide to leave the public service because of the merger; (f) hiring employees to offer the services once provided by MRSC Quebec; (g) moving employees and project managers between JRCC Halifax, JRCC Trenton, MRSC Quebec and Ottawa as a result of the merger; (h) managing projects, including the replacement of the Regional Superintendant, Search and Rescue, to oversee the logistics of the merger; and (i) other requirements related to work force adjustment, such as making reasonable job offers to affected employees?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the consolidation and closure of both marine rescue sub-centres, MRSCs, in St. John’s and Quebec is being administered as one project. MRSC St. John's was safely and successfully consolidated and closed on April 25, 2012. An approximate one-time cost of $735,000 was expended in fiscal year 2011-12 in support of the consolidation of MRSCs St. John's and Quebec into joint rescue coordination centres, JRCCs, Halifax and Trenton. The Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, is working closely with the Canadian Forces, CF, on the consolidation of MRSC Quebec into JRCCs Halifax and Trenton. The total cost for MRSC Quebec is not available at this time, as the consolidation process is still under way.
In response to (b), to date, most of the technical training at JRCC Halifax has been completed. The amount and type of training required at JRCC Trenton is being finalized. Total costs are not available at this time.
In response to (c) and (g), there has been one employee relocation associated with the MRSCs’ consolidation. The approximate cost for this move from CCG search and rescue, SAR, station Tobermory, Ontario, to JRCC Halifax is $12,000, with additional estimated expenses of $15,000. There have been no moving costs to date associated with JRCC Trenton. Approximately $21,000 in travel costs have been expended in support of the MRSC Quebec component of this consolidation.
In response to (d), the renovation of JRCC Halifax was planned and funded prior to the announcement on the consolidation of MRSCs St. John’s and Quebec. The only incremental upgrade cost was $151,000 for the installation of telecommunications equipment. No further upgrade costs are planned for JRCC Halifax at this time, as the facility meets all requirements to assume the workload of MRSC Quebec. CCG continues to work with the CF to identify and finalize upgrade costs associated with JRCC Trenton. Total costs are not available at this time.
In response to (e), no employee has opted to depart the public service as a result of this consolidation.
In response to (f), new JRCC Halifax employees currently provide services to the former area of responsibility of MRSC St. John's and, later in the year, to the area of responsibility of the eastern portion of MRSC Quebec, Gulf of St Lawrence, as consolidation progresses. In further support of the MRSC Quebec consolidation, additional employees will be hired at JRCC Trenton. The total cost of this hiring is not available at this time.
In response to (h), most project management has and continues to be done in-house using existing personnel. Correspondingly, project management costs to-date have been minimal. In FY 2011-12 approximately $250,000 of the total project cost of $735,000, which includes travel, meeting and administrative expenses, and salary expenses for project management work, is linked to project management.
In response to (i), work force adjustment costs are not available at this time. The CCG is working with affected employees at MRSC Quebec to determine a career plan for each employee.

Question No. 750--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the Police Officers Recruitment Fund’s purpose to recruit 2,500 officers across the country: (a) how many police officers were hired in each province and territory as a result of the fund; (b) how many of those officers are still in active service on the streets, and where; (c) how much money remains in the fund; and (d) when will the government renew the fund?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, budget 2008 set aside a one-time allocation of $400 million, allocated on a per capita basis and over five years, for the creation of the police officer recruitment fund to assist provinces and territories to recruit additional front-line police officers. All provinces and territories participated in the initiative.
The funds were structured in such a way as to give provinces and territories flexibility to use the funding to address their unique public safety priorities and policing needs, while at the same time respecting provincial jurisdiction for policing. Provinces and territories are responsible for accessing and allocating their portions of the funding to meet their public safety priorities. It is important to note that $400 million represents a significant contribution to policing costs incurred by the provinces and territories for an area of jurisdiction in which they have responsibility.
Thus far, the police officer recruitment fund has contributed to increasing the number of police officers across Canada by more than 2,000 since just 2009.

Question No. 758--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the decision to terminate the Office of the Inspector General of Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in Bill C-38: (a) when was the decision made; (b) who was consulted on the decision; (c) what provision has the government made to ensure that the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) will be able to replace all the functions of CSIS; (d) what provisions have been made to give SIRC the same investigatory powers that the Inspector General formerly had; (e) what plans has the government made to ensure that SIRC is able carry out these functions, in addition to its other responsibilities, despite a budget cut of $800,000?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Parliament voted to pass Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, on June 29, 2012. Upon royal assent, the Office of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s, IG-CSIS, core oversight responsibilities were transferred to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC.
With regard to (b), the House of Commons debated Bill C-38 at length, and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance held 13 meetings on the budget bill. The Senate also debated Bill C-38 at length, and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance held 20 meetings, including a pre-study, on the budget bill.
With regard to (c), the government has expanded SIRC’s legislative mandate to include producing an annual certificate to the Minister of Public Safety on the CSIS director’s annual classified report to the Minister of Public Safety, which was formerly the key function of the IG-CSIS. This legislative change ensures that SIRC will have the authority to examine the CSIS director’s report. Like the IG formerly, in its certificate SIRC will state the extent to which it is satisfied with the director’s report, as well as whether in its opinion any activities described in the report may not have been authorized under the CSIS Act, contravened ministerial direction, or were unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, per subsection 38(2) of the amended CSIS Act.
SIRC already effectively has the IG-CSIS’ other functions, namely monitoring CSIS’ compliance with its operational policies and reviewing its operational activities, per sections 38 and 40 of the CSIS Act.
With regard to (d), SIRC has the same investigatory powers as the IG-CSIS had. Both have the power to access any information in CSIS’ control, with the sole exception of cabinet confidences, per sections 31 and 39 of the CSIS Act. Bill C-38 does not alter SIRC’s investigatory powers in any respect.
Like the IG-CSIS has done, SIRC uses these investigatory powers to review the compliance of CSIS activities with the CSIS Act and with regulations and directions issued by the Minister of Public Safety.
With regard to (e), SIRC will receive additional resources to ensure it has the capacity to fulfill its new responsibilities. The decision, as approved by Parliament, will result in a net savings of approximately $785,000.

Question No. 762--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the National Capital Commission (NCC): (a) what was the original timeline or schedule for its Interprovincial Transit Strategy; (b) was each proposed milestone in that timeline or schedule met; (c) if not, what was the reason for the delay; (d) what is the currently anticipated release date for the final report; and (e) what steps will the NCC take to follow up on the conclusions or recommendations of that report?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the interprovincial transit strategy is a collaborative effort led by its study partners, the National Capital Commission, NCC; the Société de transport de l’Outaouais, STO; and the City of Ottawa as funders, with the participation of the Ville de Gatineau. The study will propose a vision to achieve sustainable, seamless and interconnected transit serving the Ottawa and Gatineau downtowns, supported by specific steps for how the partners could work collaboratively with wise investments in the near and long terms.
In response to (a), the study consists of a number of stages and milestones that included the following: study initiation, analysis of needs and opportunities, development of strategic pillars, selecting modeling method, and identification of scenarios. These milestones were interspersed with several stakeholder and public consultations and focus group sessions.
The joint study was initiated in spring 2009. The original timelines were these: phase I, April/May 2009, the benefits and challenges of interprovincial transit; phase II, June/August 2009, the process for selection of a solution; phase III, February 2010, confirmation and prioritization; and phase IV, June/July 2010, progressing the strategy
In response to (b) and (c), the screening and evaluation of scenarios required more time and attention than anticipated, in response to requests by stakeholders for a broader spectrum of scenarios for medaling and detail consideration. This has required prolonged review and meticulous consideration by the study partners.
In response to (d), a final draft of the strategy report is currently being reviewed by the study partners, and is anticipated to be released in fall 2012.
In response to (e), the partners acknowledge the importance of the study as a blueprint for ongoing dialogue, collaboration and cooperation on interprovincial transit planning and service delivery that aims to increase ridership, reduce downtown congestion and cut emissions. Some of the study recommendations will require joint action over the coming years while others will need to be taken forward by each authority over different times.

Question No. 764--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) what is the rationale for the closure or anticipated closure of the Marine Communications and Traffic Centres in (i) St. Anthony, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, (iii) Saint John, New Brunswick, (iv) Rivière-au-Renard, Quebec, (v) Montreal, Quebec, (vi) Thunder Bay, Ontario, (vii) Vancouver, British Columbia, (viii) Tofino, British Columbia, (ix) Comox, British Columbia, (x) Inuvik, Northwest Territories; (b) what is the rationale for the closure or anticipated closure of the Marine Rescue Centres in (i) St. John’s, Newfoundland, (ii) Quebec City, Quebec; (c) what is the rationale for the closure or anticipated closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard base; (d) what evaluations, studies, or assessments were made or conducted, and used to inform the decision with respect to the closure of each of those named facilities; and (e) what are the dates and file numbers of those evaluations, studies or assessments?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, consolidated 43 marine communications and traffic services, MCTS, centres into 22 centres between 1994 and 1999, and continued to provide the same high level of safety and traffic services. Building on its past consolidation success, CCG is consolidating 22 existing centres into 12 centres across the country. The consolidated centres will be equipped with state-of-the-art technology to maximize the efficiency of operations.
With regard to (b), the marine rescue sub-centres, MRSCs, are being consolidated into the JRCCs in Halifax and Trenton with no impact on service standards or public safety. The decision to consolidate the MRSCs located in St. John’s and Quebec City with the joint rescue coordination centres, JRCCs, located in Halifax and Trenton will facilitate incident response coordination by co-locating both air and maritime personnel in a single rescue centre. Co-location will provide for closer communication between CCG and Canadian Forces personnel. As of April 25, 2012, maritime search and rescue coordination responsibilities of MRSC St. John’s were successfully assumed by JRCC Halifax, and Canadians continue to receive the same level of service.
With regard to (c), the CCG has determined the most effective and efficient mix of federally funded resources for the Vancouver area to maintain current the level of service. These resources will include a new inshore rescue boat, which will be strategically positioned within Vancouver harbour and be operational during the busy summer period; the Sea Island hovercraft; a strengthened partnership with the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, as well as other emergency responders; and, as always, vessels of opportunity.
With regard to (d), the CCG continually strives to provide outstanding maritime services to Canadians and to improve our service delivery whenever possible. To this end, CCG continually evaluates program planning and delivery to ensure the most effective and efficient use of available resources.
With regard to (e), the files include Marine Communications and Traffic Services Levels of Service, May 2010; and Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centres Workload Analysis Recommendations Concerning Optimum Staffing, October 20, 2011.

Question No. 767--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Department of National Defence: (a) have the Canadian Forces or the Department of National Defence investigated the forest fire which broke out at CFB Goose Bay on or around May 25, 2012; and (b) if so, what was the outcome of the investigation, and what are the reference numbers or titles of any related files?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with reference to (a), the Canadian Forces conducted an investigation into the forest fire that broke out at 5 Wing Goose Bay on or around May 25, 2012.
With regard to (b), the investigation concluded that the fire was accidentally started by two members of the Canadian Forces who were conducting annual pyrotechnic refresher training when a flare ricocheted and landed in the nearby brush.
The reference numbers for the related files are as follows: 11300-1, wing explosives safety officer, Ammunition and Explosives Accident--Detailed Report, June 19, 2012; 5090-1, command post, Significant Incident Report--Forest Fire, May 25, 2012; 11300-1, wing operations, Ammunition and Explosives Accident--Preliminary Report, May 31, 2012; 2012-3576, 5 Wing, Bush/Grass Fire Report, signed by wing commander, June 27, 2012; CF 98, 5 Wing Fire Department log, May 25, 2012; 11300-1, A4 maintenance armament, commander of 1 Canadian Air Division response to Ammunition and Explosives Accident Report--5 Wing Goose Bay, 25 May 2012, July 2012; and 11300-1, A4 maintenance armament, briefing note for commander for Ammunition and Explosives Accident Report--5 Wing Goose Bay--25 May 2012, July 2, 2012).

Question No. 769--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to the closing of Kingston Penitentiary, the Regional Treatment Centre and the Leclerc Institution, for each of these three facilities: (a) what is the estimated total savings in annual costs that occur as a result of the closure; (b) what methodology was used to arrive at the figure in (a); (c) what input data was used to arrive at the figure in (a); (d) how was this data collected; (e) what are the estimated costs for transferring the inmates to other facilities; (f) what are the estimated costs for transferring employees from the above institutions to new institutions, including but not limited to annualised capital costs of construction, staffing costs and operation and maintenance costs; (g) for those employees who will not be transferred, what if any retirement initiatives will be offered and what is the total estimated costs of these initiatives; (h) what are all the total estimated costs of incarcerating the inmates at other facilities who would have been held at each of the three facilities slated for closure; and (i) what are the true net savings to the government once the total costs of holding the inmates at other facilities are taken into account?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the closures of Kingston Penitentiary, including the Regional Treatment Centre, and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec, will result in an overall cost savings of approximately $120 million per year.
With regard to (b), (c) and (d), the closures of two federal prisons--Kingston Penitentiary, including the Regional Treatment Centre, in Kingston, Ontario, and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec--will result in an overall cost savings of approximately $120 million.
More precisely, CSC’s budget will be $120 million less at the end of implementation. This reflects the savings from salaries, operating and maintenance, as well as savings realized from the addition of new cells.
With regard to (e) and (h), CSC has a comprehensive plan to safely move offenders impacted by these closures to other institutions. Many institutions in the Ontario Region are undergoing infrastructure expansions to better manage the complex and diverse offender population.
Maximum security inmates will remain maximum security inmates and be placed in appropriate facilities at this level. The same will apply for medium security inmates. The Ontario Region’s assessment unit will be moved out of Millhaven Institution, thereby increasing the maximum security capacity of this institution. Maximum security inmates will be transferred either to Millhaven Institution or to a new maximum security unit at Collins Bay Institution. Medium security inmates currently incarcerated at the Regional Treatment Centre will be transferred to Bath Institution, a medium security institution located on the same penitentiary property as Millhaven Institution. A new medium security unit is being built within the perimeter of Bath Institution with a capacity of 96 cells.
Where appropriate, CSC may consider voluntary transfers of offenders to other regions
For security reasons, CSC cannot divulge details relating to a specific offender’s movement. The transfer of these offenders will be done with the utmost consideration for the safety and security of the community. CSC is unable to comment on any associated costs during the transition leading to the closures of the institutions.
With regard to (f), these initiatives will result in approximately 1,000 full-time employees being affected within Ontario and Quebec. However, the majority of affected staff will be redeployed to other facilities. Employees whose jobs are affected will be treated with fairness and respect, and in accordance with workforce adjustment agreements that have been negotiated with public sector unions. Pursuant to obligations under the Work Force Adjustment Directive, CSC is committed to maximizing employment opportunities for indeterminate employees affected by workforce adjustment situations.
CSC has a comprehensive plan to accommodate staff impacted by these closures to other institutions. However, during the transition leading to the closures of the institutions, CSC is unable to comment on the related estimated costs.
With regard to (g), in July 2012 affected CX staff were met by CSC management and a union representative in order to select a location to be deployed to off the national vacancy list. Affected CX employees who intend to retire on or before October 31, 2013, and provide written confirmation of same will not be required to select a position from the vacancy list.
There will not be any incentives or options for retirement. CSC is dealing with each union individually
With regard to (i), CSC’s budget will be net $120 million less at the end of the implementation of this reduction.

Question No. 773--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to National Historic Sites: (a) in calendar year 2011, for each National Historic Site, what were the (i) season opening and closing dates, (ii) hours of operation; and (b) in calendar year 2012, for each National Historic Site what are or will be the (i) season opening and closing dates, (ii) hours of operation?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in 2011 national historic sites under the administration of Parks Canada were generally open from the Victoria Day weekend to the Thanksgiving weekend. In 2012 Parks Canada is aligning and reducing the duration of operating seasons and hours in national historic sites to match peak visitation periods and to minimize off-season requirements. The majority of national historic sites have maintained similar opening and closing dates for 2012; however, some sites opened on June 1 and will close on the Labour Day weekend.

Question No. 778--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Accord concluded in August 2011 and the technical assistance provided by the Canadian government to the Honduran government for the purposes of drafting a new mining law in Honduras: (a) what is or will be the nature of technical assistance provided, facilitated or funded by the government to the Honduran government; (b) which Canadian government department developed the agreement with Honduran authorities to provide technical assistance; (c) which Canadian government department is the source of funding for this technical assistance; (d) who has been contracted to provide the technical assistance; (e) what are the terms of reference for this contract; (f) what objectives does such technical assistance seek to meet; (g) what is the time frame for the full execution of this technical assistance project; (h)what is the expected final product or outcomes of this project; and (i) how will these outcomes be made available to the public in Honduras and Canada during or following completion of this initiative?
Response
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the nature of the technical assistance to be provided to the Government of Honduras is as follows: first, as part of a needs assessment, to undertake a review of Honduras' proposed mining legislation to identify any and all sections of the draft legislation that would require revision to bring them into compliance with international norms and standards of best practice in the extractive sector. Advice of Canadian experts will be limited to identifying areas of compliance and non-compliance with international norms and will not propose specific text.
Second, to assess the priority needs of the Government of Honduras in order to bring its governance and regulatory capacity up to international norms and standards of best practice in the extractive sector. This would include assessing the current situation in the sector; the current and envisaged regulatory framework, including institutions and their roles; private sector and other stakeholders; key issues and challenges in the sector; and priority needs for capacity-building.
Third, to develop a work plan, which will include the results of the review of the proposed legislation and capacity needs assessment components above, and map out for the Government of Honduras the priority investments that Honduras should make to equip itself to govern and regulate the extractive sector in Honduras according to international norms. The work plan shall include a brief description of each proposed activity, recipient partners in Honduras, estimated level of effort and budget and expected timeframe for the activity's implementation.
Fourth, to deliver technical assistance to Honduras to implement the work plan upon approval of the work plan and identification of appropriate resources to deliver the technical assistance.
With regard to (b) and (c), no formal agreement was developed between the Government of Honduras and the Government of Canada to address the request by the Government of Honduras. However, CIDA consulted with the Government of Honduras in advance of providing assistance. CIDA is providing the funding for the technical assistance to the Government of Honduras via the Deployment for Democratic Development, DDD, project, which is implemented by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, IPAC.
The DDD is a recruitment and deployment mechanism for Canadian expert resources in democratic governance. Deployments respond to requests from CIDA's country partners and contribute to the expected results of CIDA’s country programs. The DDD has supported 82 initiatives to date, deploying 200 experts, of whom 63 were women and 137 men.
Examples of results include developing a human resources manual with Ghana's Public Service Commission, training Peru's Office of the Ombudsman in results-based management, establishing the Guyana Media Proprietors Association through which private media organizations can advocate for greater media freedom, providing an expert to the Honduras Truth and Reconciliation Commission and advising Mongolia's Civil Service Council to help design amendments to the Law on Civil Service.
With regard to (d), IPAC is contracted by CIDA for the management of the DDD and uses a competitive process under this project to select Canadian expert resources who are providing the needed expertise to undertake the needs assessment and develop a work plan.
With regard to (e) and (f), the terms of reference and objectives for the needs assessment component via IPAC are outlined in (a) above. Terms of reference, including objectives, for the next component of technical assistance, which is implementing the work plan, will be determined after the work plan is approved by CIDA.
With regard to (g), the exact timing is dependent on the content of the final work plan, but it is generally expected to be completed by the end of June 2013.
With regard to (h), the final expected product from the needs assessment is a work plan, with an annex that will report the findings of the review of the proposed mining legislation. The final expected outcomes resulting from implementation of the work plan depend on the final work plan content, currently being developed under the needs assessment component.
With regard to (i), IPAC maintains a website, http://democraticdevelopment.ca. IPAC reports to CIDA on progress against expected outcomes. CIDA publishes DDD project results annually online at http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/cpo.nsf/vLUWebProjEn/796ED78AE5A03EA48525763A00372312?OpenDocument.

Question No. 779--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With regard to government Web sites: (a) when did the Supreme Court of Canada change from a “.ca” to a “.gc.ca” Web domain suffix; (b) what was the reason for the change; and (c) who initiated the change?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has used the “gc.ca” subdomain since it launched its website in 1988.
On the other hand, to facilitate the public’s access to its website, the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada has registered additional addresses that will redirect to its official website of www.scc-csc.gc.ca, as follows: coursupreme.ca; coursupremeducanada.ca; coursupremeducanada.com; coursupremeducanada.net; coursupremeducanada.org; supremecourtofcanada.ca; supremecourtofcanada.com; supremecourtofcanada.net; supremecourtofcanada.org; cour supreme du canada.ca; cour supreme du canada.com; cour supreme du canada.net; cour supreme du canada.org; supreme court of canada.ca; supreme court of canada.com; supreme court of canada.net; supreme court of canada.org; lacoursupremeducanada.ca; lacoursupremeducanada.com; lacoursupremeducanada.net; lacoursupremeducanada.org; thesupremecourtofcanada.ca; thesupremecourtofcanada.com; thesupremecourtofcanada.net; thesupremecourtofcanada.org; scc csc.ca; scc csc.com; scc csc.net; scc csc.org; and scc csc.gc.ca.

Question No. 781--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: (a) for which specific countries do Canadian embassies provide human rights reports to the government; (b) in which specific countries do these reports include a report on religious freedom; and (c) for any report on religious freedom since January 1, 2006, what was the date of the report and the country to which it pertained?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), over the last 13 years, Canada has prepared human rights reports on the 134 countries listed hereafter. It should be noted that not every country has been covered every year.
The countries include the following: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, West Bank and Gaza, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, South Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
With regard to (b), this year’s human rights reporting guidelines instructed Canadian missions abroad to include a section focused specifically on religious freedom. Prior to this, it was at the missions’ discretion to include a section on freedom of religion in their reports. Human rights reports for this year that have been received to date and that include a specific section on freedom of religion are listed below. Not all reports have been finalized. Assessments provided in these sections can be positive and/or negative.
These human rights reports are on the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Burma, Burundi, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, , Kazakhstan, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malawi, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Togo, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.
With regard to (c), since 2006 no formal stand-alone reports on religious freedom have been solicited by the department’s human rights division, which manages the annual human rights reporting process. Missions may, however, choose to report on religious freedom where and when warranted. Examples of such reports received over the last six months include a report on a conference on religious freedom in China, a report on negotiations between Greek Catholics and the Orthodox Church in Romania, a report on the promotion of pluralism in Pakistan, a report on the U.S.-led Istanbul process to combat intolerance based on religion or belief and periodic situational reports on Egypt.

Question No. 782--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With respect to Overseas Development Assistance: (a) what amount of money has been earmarked for fiscal year 2012-2013 for (i) democracy promotion projects, (ii) good governance projects; and (b) which Canadian organizations have been granted funding for democracy promotion and good governance projects in (i) Egypt, (ii) Tunisia, (iii) Libya?
Response
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), international assistance funding administered through the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, is not typically earmarked by sector or theme, such as democracy promotion or good governance. The agency’s budget is allocated first by delivery channel--bilateral, multilateral, partnership--and then by program. Once CIDA’s budget has been allocated, project-level disbursements can be filtered through a system of codes developed by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, to code donor activities so that donor governments can report on and compare how much they are spending to achieve their development results.
Over the last five years from 2007-08 to 2011-12, CIDA spending on good governance has averaged $465 million per year. This figure was calculated based on the following DAC codes: public sector policy and administrative; public finance management; decentralization and support to sub-national government; anti-corruption organizations and institutions; legal and judicial development; democratic participation and civil society; elections; legislatures and political parties; media and free flow of information; human rights; and statistical capacity-building. Of this amount, spending for democracy promotion has averaged $220 million per year. This figure was calculated based on the following DAC codes: legal and judicial development; democratic participation and civil society; elections; legislatures and political parties; media and free flow of information; and human rights.
In fiscal year 2012-13, CIDA has disbursed to date, as of August 31, 2012, $85.15 million for good governance, of which $32.25 million has been for democracy promotion.
With regard to (b), to date the following Canadian organizations have received funding in fiscal year 2012-13 for projects that include democracy promotion and good governance activities: for Egypt, Foundation for International Training, Aga Khan Foundation Canada, Agriteam Canada and YMCA Canada; for Tunisia, none; for Libya, none.
In addition to projects in democracy promotion and good governance, the Government of Canada is providing additional support in the region. On March 2, 2011, the Prime Minister announced that Canada would deliver up to $5 million in humanitarian aid to help address urgent medical requirements, basic humanitarian needs and the repatriation of people displaced into Tunisia and Egypt. As well, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced on March 16, 2011, that Government of Canada would contribute $11 million over five years toward the creation of economic opportunities for young Egyptians and for the development of democratic institutions in Egypt and the broader Middle East and North Africa region.

Question No. 789--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what are the details (including the name of each organization represented, and of each individual present) of all meetings held from June 1, 2011, to June 1, 2012, with any and all external stakeholders, by (i) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (ii) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (iii) the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (iv) the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; and (b) what are the details of all travel and associated expenses incurred from June 1, 2011, to June 1, 2012 by (i) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (ii) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (iii) the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, including the reason for the travel, the organizations met with, and detailed accounts of all expenses incurred?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii) and (a)(iv), it should be noted that the department does not maintain a list of external stakeholder meetings for Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the chief of staff to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the deputy minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Additional information on deputy minister and ministerial meetings with stakeholders can be found on the website of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada at https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/h_00000.html.
With regard to (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (b)(iii), the details of all travel and associated expenses incurred by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the chief of staff to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the deputy minister of Fisheries and Oceans are available on the Fisheries and Oceans proactive disclosure for travel and hospitality website at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/dthe-dfva/index-eng.asp.

Question No. 790--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to Service Canada, and more specifically the Canada Pension Plan Post-Retirement Benefit (PRB): (a) what is the projected revenue from employees and employers contributing to the PRB in calendar year 2012; and (b) what are the amounts projected to be paid out to PRB recipients in calendar year 2013, broken down by province and territory?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the projections used in this response were provided by the Office of the Chief Actuary, OCA, which is responsible for providing projections for the Canada Pension Plan, CPP.
With regard to (a), using the assumptions from the 25th Actuarial Report on the Canada Pension Plan, the OCA has projected that $576 million will be paid in contributions toward CPP post-retirement benefits, PRBs, in 2012. Contributions to the plan by working retirement pension recipients are mandatory for working beneficiaries between the ages of 60 and 64 and their employers, and voluntary after age 65, until age 70. The estimated contributions to CPP PRBs are based on the assumption that 50% of working beneficiaries aged 65 to 69 will choose to continue making contributions.
With regard to (b), projections are only available for the CPP as a whole because the OCA does not make projections by province and territory. Using the assumptions from the 25th Actuarial Report on the CPP, the OCA has estimated that $42 million will be paid in PRBs in 2013.
The amount of a single year’s PRB will be less than what the individual contributed the previous year; however, each PRB is payable until death and is fully indexed to the cost of living. The PRB represents a net gain for the vast majority of individuals and is intended to offer additional security in retirement as a stable and fully indexed benefit. In addition, the PRB amounts are not subject to the normal rules for maximum benefits, allowing individuals to continue to build their retirement income, even if they are already receiving the maximum CPP retirement or combined benefit amount.

Question No. 791--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Department of National Defence, what is the cost of all press releases issued by the department between January 1, 2012, and May 1, 2012 inclusively?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence searched through its contracts with Marketwire and found that the cost of the 100 press releases that it issued between January 1, 2012, and May 1, 2012, is $9,074.55. This includes information for the Communications Security Establishment Canada, Military Police Complaints Commission, Canadian Forces Grievance Board, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, National Search and Rescue Secretariat and the Department of National Defence Canadian Forces Ombudsman.

Question No. 792--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Department of National Defence, in preparation for the Auditor General's (AG) 2012 Spring Report, how many draft responses were sent between the department and the AG's office concerning F-35 aircraft?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence Canadian Forces provided five written and official responses to the Office of the Auditor General concerning the draft audit reports entitled “Replacing Canada’s Fighter Jets”.

Question No. 795--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With respect to studies Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) has undertaken or commissioned on workforce mobility: (a) under which HRSDC official's direction did HRSDC commission Sage Research Corp to study what type of migration incentives could encourage EI clients to accept a job that requires a residential move; (b) what was the rationale to undertake this study; (c) what are the details of the study; (d) what was the cost of the study; (e) what is HRSDC's response to the study; (f) what are the details and costs of other similar studies conducted or commissioned by HRSDC in the last six years; and (g) is HRSDC planning further studies on incentives for workforce mobility through the EI system?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the official was Stephen Johnson, director general of the evaluation directorate, strategic policy and research branch.
With regard to (b), this study was undertaken to support the employment insurance, EI, monitoring and assessment report tabled to Parliament. Specifically, section 3 of the Employment Insurance Act assigns the Canada Employment Insurance Commission with the following mandate: “The Commission shall monitor and assess the impact and effectiveness, for individuals, communities and the economy, of the benefits and other assistance provided under this Act, including (a) how the benefits and assistance are utilized by employees and employers, and (b) the effect of the benefits and assistance on the obligation of claimants to be available for and to seek employment and on the efforts of employers to maintain a stable workforce.”
With regard to (c), the report describes the findings from eight focus groups conducted with frequent EI clients in four cities: Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec; Corner Brook, Newfoundland; Miramichi, New Brunswick; and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. In each city, there was one focus group with younger participants, younger than 45 years of age, and one focus group with older participants, 45 to 60 years of age. There were eight to 10 participants in each focus group, and a total of 75 participants overall.
The following questions were to be addressed with this study: What factors influence geographic labour mobility, that is, the decision to accept a job that requires a residential move, temporary or permanent, within the country? To what extent does EI eligibility and generosity affect geographic labour mobility? What type of migration incentives, such as relocation grants or travel grants, might encourage EI clients to accept a job that requires a residential move? Does migration lead to an improvement in the economic and social situation of migrants and their families?
With regard to (d), the amount paid for this contract was $52,000.
With regard to (e), since this study was not a formal evaluation report, no recommendations were made and no response was prepared by the department. The study adds to a body of evidence summarized in the 2011 EI monitoring and assessment report in the following way on page 158: “A number of studies in the past decade have looked at the determinants of labour mobility and whether EI plays a role in the decision to migrate for employment. Results of these studies indicate that factors such as personal and labour market characteristics, as well as moving costs, play a key role in mobility decisions, while EI generosity does not seem to affect mobility decisions. Another recent study has suggested that EI does not discourage workers from being mobile. EI recipients were found to be more likely than non-EI recipients to commute 30 kilometres or more to go to work and more likely to work outside their census subdivision of residence. Also, following a job loss, EI recipients were more likely than non-EI recipients to move more than 100 kilometres away. Furthermore, a study estimated that eliminating regional EI extended benefits and regional EI differences in the Variable Entrance Requirement (VER) would increase the volume of migration by less than 1%. In general, the available evidence suggests that EI is generally not a barrier to mobility.”
With regard to (f), other similar studies conducted or commissioned by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, in the last six years include the following:
Employment Insurance and Labour Mobility: A Critical Review of the Literature. The study was completed in June 2007 by Dr. David Gray, University of Ottawa, and Dr. James Ted McDonald, University of New Brunswick. The cost was $16,500. The costs to HRSDC, including translation and publishing, were approximately $20,000.
The Impact of EI Regional Boundary Revisions on Mobility in New Brunswick: Evidence from the LAD. The study was an econometric analysis using the Statistics Canada longitudinal administrative databank, LAD, linked with EI administrative data. The cost consisted of HRSDC salary expenditures and $7,500 for analysis from the LAD.
Commuting and Mobility Patterns of Employment Insurance (EI) Recipients and Non-Recipients. The methodology used the 2006 census to study the relationship between EI receipt in 2005 and commuting patterns, meaning job location versus residential location, in 2006. The 2004-2009 Canadian Out of Employment Panel Surveys were used to examine the relationship between EI receipt and mobility decision after a job loss and to examine time trends in mobility choices of job separators. The cost consisted of HRSDC salary expenditures.
With regard to (g), in support of the 2012 monitoring and assessment report, the Canadian Out of Employment Panel Survey and EI administrative data will be further analyzed in Impact of EI on Regional Labour Mobility. The cost will consist of HRSDC salary expenditures.

Question No. 797--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to government funding for the Canadian Museum of Civilization’s archaeological work on Baffin Island and in northern Labrador dealing with the interactions between the Norse of Greenland and the indigenous peoples of Baffin Island, Labrador, and Québec in the 11th and 12th centuries: (a) what is the current status of funding for the Museum of Civilization, for the current year and coming years; (b) what is the current status of this archaeological project and what field and laboratory work is planned for the next 3 years; (c) when will a report on this project be released; (d) are the local indigenous people involved, consulted, and informed on the work of this project, specifically the people of Nunavut, Nunavik, Québec, and Nunatsiak, Newfoundland and Labrador; (e) has the government or the Museum of Civilization considered raising public awareness of projects like this; (f) has the government or the Museum of Civilization considered an exhibit, including the possibility of a travelling exhibit; (g) has the government considered cooperation with the government of Denmark on this projects in view of the shared interest; and (h) are there any publications on this project or other archaeological projects of the Museum of Civilization that could be useful to brief Members of Parliament on the Museum’s activities?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), archaeological research is one of the activities that is normally funded through annual appropriations.
With regard to (b), this project is currently under review as part of a broader review of museum research priorities.
With regard to (c), at this time there is no plan to release a report on this project.
With regard to (d), the local indigenous people were involved, consulted and informed of the work of this project as required.
With regard to (e), the Museum of Civilization regularly raises public awareness of projects like this through different means, including academic journals, books, lectures, exhibits, websites and public programs.
With regard to (f), the museum has exhibited material from this project in the past, and there are no plans at this time to create a travelling exhibition.
With regard to (g), the Canadian Museum of Civilization, as a crown corporation, will often work with other museums on projects of common interest. The museum is not aware if the Government of Canada has considered co-operation with the Government of Denmark on this project.
With regard to (h), extensive information concerning this particular project can be found on the museum’s website, annual reports and corporate plan summaries.

Question No. 801--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
What costs were incurred by the government with respect to the “Sandbox Project” event held on Sparks Street in Ottawa in June 2012, and which departments or agencies incurred those costs?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government congratulates The Sandbox Project, the member for Simcoe-Grey and all other parliamentarians who participated in the event held in Ottawa last June aimed to foster collaboration and knowledge to ensure Canada becomes the healthiest place in the world in which to raise children.
As this event was privately funded, the government did not incur any expenses.

Question No. 806--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to government employment levels, for each of the federal electoral districts of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Nipissing—Timiskaming, Labrador, Yukon, Richmond—Arthabaska and Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière: (a) what is the current total number of federal employees in the riding; and (b) what is the total number of anticipated job reduction in the riding for fiscal years (i) 2012-2013, (ii) 2013-2014, (iii) 2014-2015?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board Secretariat cannot produce the requested statistics by riding.

Question No. 808--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to cultural heritage: (a) what measures has the government taken to protect the petroglyphs at Qajartalik, Nunavik, Quebec; and (b) what are the details (dates and file numbers) of any reports, studies, or other records in the government’s possession concerning (i) the petroglyphs themselves, (ii) vandalism or other threats to the petroglyphs, (iii) measures taken or proposed to be taken for their protection?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), cultural heritage protection falls within the responsibility of the provinces and territories under their respective heritage legislation.
With regard to (b), the relevant report is “Screening report: Qajartalik Petroglyphs”, file number 991, dated February 18, 2009.
With regard to (b)(i), in December 2008 Parks Canada received a nomination to recognize the Qajartalik petroglyphs as a national historic site. The nomination, file number 991, was recommended for the consideration of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, HSMBC. Parks Canada is currently producing a submission report for the consideration of the HSMBC at its earliest convenience.
With regard to (b)(ii), no reports, studies or other records concerning vandalism or other threats to the petroglyphs exist in Parks Canada’s possession.
With regard to (b)(iii), no reports, studies or other records concerning measures taken or proposed to be taken for the protection of the petroglyphs exist in Parks Canada’s possession.

Question No. 813--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s Office of Religious Freedoms: (a) what meetings has the government taken in 2011-2012 regarding the development of this office; (b) what are the details of the briefing notes, reports, or other documents that were prepared for these meetings, specifically the titles or files or reference numbers of those documents; (c) what are the specific responsibilities of this office; (d) in what document are those responsibilities set down; (e) what is the proposed number of employees to work in this office; and (f) what is the proposed job title, job description, qualifications, and salary range for each position?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the promotion and protection of human rights is a key component of Canada’s foreign policy, and the Government of Canada strongly believes in the ability of all people to be free to practise their religion of choice. Canadians enjoy the rights and privileges that come with living in a free and democratic society in which human rights are respected. The government is also keenly aware of the struggles that religious minorities face around the world. That is why, during the most recent Speech from the Throne on June 3, 2011, and again at the United Nations General Assembly, the government committed to creating an office of religious freedom. Since being appointed in May 2011 as Minister of Foreign Affairs, I have met both domestically and internationally with a wide variety of individuals, organizations, like-minded countries, religious leaders and academics to discuss the protection of religious minorities. This includes, but is not limited to, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Llarge for International Religious Freedom, the Aga Khan, the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch, the Secretary General of the Baha’i International Community, Ahmadiyya religious leaders, ambassadors and many others.
With regard to (b), the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, DFAIT, has prepared briefing material on this issue for the minister, but in accordance with section 19 of the Access to Information Act, DFAIT cannot disclose details of the documents. For the October 2011 stakeholder consultation meeting, a one-page briefing note providing an overview of the office of religious freedom was provided. The brief outlines the genesis and rationale for making religious freedom a foreign policy priority, the state of play on the creation of the office and the broad objectives of the mandate. In addition, remarks were prepared for the meeting chair, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for use at the meeting, primarily to thank participants, introduce panellists and broadly frame the discussion.
With regard to (c) and (d), it is expected that the office will focus on areas such as advocacy, analysis, policy development and programming related to protecting and advocating on behalf of religious minorities under threat; opposing religious hatred; and promoting Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad. These areas of focus are set down in a memorandum to cabinet and a Treasury Board submission.
With regard to (e) and (f), no formal announcement has been made on the office, and work is ongoing. Other than confirming that the head of the office will be an ambassadorial appointment from outside the public service, it would be premature to confirm the full staffing structure of the office, including the titles, work descriptions, qualifications and salary ranges. The government will have more to say on this important initiative shortly.

Question No. 816--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to Public Works and Government Services Canada, what were the legal costs incurred by the government with respect to the case Halifax Regional Municipality v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, – and – City of Toronto, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Association of Canadian Port Authorities and City of Québec, decided as Supreme Court of Canada docket 33876, distinguishing costs incurred: (a) pre-trial; (b) related to proceedings at the Federal Court of Canada; (c) related to proceedings at the Federal Court of Appeal; (d) related to proceedings at the Supreme Court of Canada; and (e) other costs, specifying the nature of those costs?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal crown asserts that privilege and, in this case, has waived that privilege only to the extent of revealing the total amount of money spent, which is approximately $565,634.13.

Question No. 817--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to audio-video monitoring and recording by the Canadian Border Services Agency: (a) how much has the federal government spent on the equipment and installation of that equipment to date; (b) under what legal authority has the audio monitoring equipment been installed; and (c) what provisions have been made to handle the information gathered from airport surveillance?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CBSA cannot give an accurate estimate, as some equipment has been included in overall project costs and cannot be isolated.
With regard to (b) and (c), the CBSA has heard concerns from Canadians regarding the privacy impact of this practice. As the Minister of Public Safety has stated, the CBSA welcomes the Privacy Commissioner's study of this policy. The Minister of Public Safety has directed the CBSA to halt audio monitoring, with the exception of recorded interviews, until a privacy impact assessment can be submitted and recommendations from the Privacy Commissioner can be reviewed by the government. Neither the CBSA nor the Government of Canada provided specific direction to enable the monitoring or recording of audio. It is important for agencies tasked with protecting Canadians to have the right tools to catch smugglers and keep criminals and other unwelcome individuals out of Canada. It is equally important that these tools do not infringe on individuals' privacy in a way that is unjustified or unnecessary to ensure security.

Question No. 818--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With respect to the repair and divestiture of the seawall at Advocate Harbour, Nova Scotia, as referred to in the February 24, 2011, Department of Fisheries and Oceans press release and previous releases about this property: (a) has the government deemed this property surplus and, if it has, (i) when did it do so, (ii) what was the rationale behind this decision, (iii) does a property deemed surplus require automatic divestiture and, if so, what are the related regulations or policy, (iv) what is the full divestiture process for this property, (iii) at what stage of the divestiture process is the property now, (v) what is the relevant government department's strategy to ensure the property is fully divested, (vi) has any government departments been offered the property and, if so, what was their response, (vii) has the province of Nova Scotia been offered the property and, if so, what was its response, (viii) has the local municipality been offered the property and, if so, what was its response, (ix) has any community groups or private individual or entity been offered the property and, if so, what was their response; (b) what is the justification for funding repairs to this property if it is deemed surplus and/or to be divested and is this normal practice; (c) from which specific program do the repair funds come; (d) what is the criteria for the program from which the repair funds were accessed; (e) how much money did the government spend on plans and repairs of the Advocate Harbour Seawall from January 2006 to date and what future costs are anticipated, broken down by (i) cost item, (ii) date incurred or to be incurred, (iii) from which funding program the funds were, or planned to be, received; (f) has a fair market value been determined and, if so, what are the details of the assessment; (g) was the investment in the repair to the Advocate Harbour seawall solely to protect local infrastructure, agricultural land and private property, (h) what was the rationale for the government funding the 2012 assessment, as referenced by the May 21, 2010, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency press release; (i) did any funds for the repairs to the Advocate Harbour seawall come from a mechanism known as “invest to divest" which the government can use to facilitate the Treasury Board’s directive on the divestiture of surplus property and, if so (i) how much and (ii) by what rationale; (j) what are the specific guidelines for the government to use the mechanism known as “invest to divest”; and (k) in what instances in the last six years did the “invest to divest” mechanism been used but the property not been divested?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the property in West Advocate has not been declared surplus, but it is intended that it shall be declared surplus once the investment in the property is completed. Questions (a)(i) to (a)(x) are only answerable after the property is declared surplus, with the exception of (a)(iii): deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that the real property surplus to program requirements is not retained. Disposal by sale or transfer is completed in conformance with the Treasury Board directive on the sale or transfer of surplus real property.
With regard to (b), the justification for funding repairs to this property is to facilitate the divestiture of this property. It is normal practice when divesting of surplus property to invest in the property.
With regard to (c), the funding program is entitled “Equipment and other moveable assets centre of expertise, vote 5, Fisheries and Oceans capital expenditures”.
With regard to (d), the program criteria that funded this project, deemed a major capital project, requires the project to be valued at over $1 million and to be included in the capital plan.
With regard to (e), money spent on plans and repairs includes $146,000 in 2010 for which the Cumberland Regional Economic Development Association developed the project plans; $360,000 in 2011-012 for which the Canadian Coast Guard tendered and completed the phase 1 repairs. There is a $600,000 budget in 2012-13 for the phase 2 repairs, which complete the project with no future costs anticipated. Funding was received from the program entitled “Equipment and other moveable assets centre of expertise, vote 5, Fisheries and Oceans capital expenditures.”
With regard to (f), the property’s fair market value, in its current condition, has not been determined.
With regard to (g), the investment was not made solely for this reason. While a justification for funding repairs to this property was to facilitate the divestiture of this property, as stated by Minister Shea in a press release February 24, 2011, the improvements will also “serve to protect local infrastructure, agricultural land and private property”.
With regard to (h), the rationale was to undertake an engineering assessment of the adequacy of the area’s sea barrier and underlying soil conditions prior to developing solutions to facilitate the divestiture of this property.
With regard to (i), the invest to divest program did not fund or form any part of this project.
With regard to (j), the invest to divest allocation model forms the specific guidelines used by Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s real property, safety and security directorate to administer the invest to divest program.
With regard to (k), since fiscal year 2006-07, invest to divest project funding has been allocated to the following surplus properties that have yet to be divested: Annandale lighthouse, Prince Edward Island; Baccalieu Island lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Baccaro Point lighthouse, Nova Scotia; Belyea’s Point lighthouse, New Brunswick; Cap des Rosiers lighthouse, Quebec; Cap Bon Désir lighthouse, Quebec; Cap Chat lighthouse, Quebec; Cap de la Madeleine lighthouse, Quebec; Cap D’Espoir lighthouse, Quebec; Cap de la Tête au Chien lighthouse, Quebec; Cape Bonavista lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Cape St. Mary’s lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Chantry Island lighthouse, Ontario; Cheewat Field Camp, British Columbia; Dartmouth Coast Guard base, Nova Scotia; Cape Jourimain lighthouse, New Brunswick; Long Eddy Point lighthouse, New Brunswick; Low Point lighthouse, Nova Scotia; North Cape lighthouse, Prince Edward Island; Partridge Island lighthouse, New Brunswick; Pilier de Pierre lighthouse, Quebec; Point Amour lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Pointe Beaudette, former range site, Quebec; Port Daniel lighthouse, Quebec; Îles du Pot a l’eau-de-vie lighthouse, Quebec; Prim Point lighthouse, Prince Edward Island; Red Bay lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Selkirk Coast Guard base, Manitoba; Sherbrooke Lake, former aid site, Nova Scotia; Sheringham Point lighthouse, British Columbia; and Sainte-Marthe-de-Gaspé lighthouse, Quebec.
Aboriginal peoplesAccess for disabled peopleAccess to informationAdvocate HarbourAéroport Montréal Saint-Hubert LongueuilAglukkaq, LeonaAgreements and contractsAirportsAlfalfaAmbrose, RonaAnderson, David ...Show all topics
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 659--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the processing of complaints since the Commission was established, broken down by year and by each provision of the Act under which a complaint was filed: (a) what is the total number of complaints filed with the Commission; (b) what is the average amount of time, in days, allocated to resolving a complaint; (c) what percentage of complaints have been resolved in favour of the complainant; (d) on average, how many complaints has the Commission denied per year; (e) what percentage of complaints have been withdrawn by the complainant before they were resolved; (f) what percentage of complaints were dismissed by the Commission; and (g) are there recurring grounds for dismissal?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 660--
Mr. Dennis Bevington:
With regard to projects in the Northwest Territories under the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, since its inception to the present, broken down by year, and providing details including, but not limited to, location and scope of work carried out: (a) what projects have been funded; (b) for each project, what other organizations (public and private) were involved; (c) how much federal money was provided to each project; (d) for each project, how much money was provided by other organizations; (e) what is the current status of these projects; (f) what projects are being considered for future years; (g) for each of the projects being considered for the future what is the estimated federal expenditure; and (h) for each future project what other organizations are expected to be involved, and what are their contributions expected to be?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 661--
Mr. Jack Harris:
With regard to Canada’s CF-188 Hornet aircraft fleet, since the CF-188 has been in operation by the Canadian Forces: (a) how many incidents of single engine failure have occurred in CF-188 aircraft; (b) how many incidents of a single engine failure in a CF-188 aircraft have resulted in a Significant Incident Report (SIR); (c) what is the title of each of these reports; (d) what were the findings of each of these reports; (e) what were the causes of each engine failure; (f) how many incidents of avian ingestion by a CF-188 engine have occurred, broken down by year; (g) how many incidents of avian ingestion have resulted in the failure of a CF-188 aircraft engine, broken down by year; (h) how many incidents of avian ingestion have compromised the normal functioning of a CF-188 aircraft engine, broken down by year; (i) how many incidents of avian ingestion by a CF-188 engine have resulted in a SIR; (j) what is the title of each such report; and (k) what were the findings of each of these reports?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 662--
Mr. Raymond Côté:
What is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency of Beauce between the fiscal year 2006-2007 and the current fiscal year, broken down (i) by department or agency, (ii) for each department or agency, by initiative or project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 663--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to the Budget 2006 commitment to begin arming border guards: (a) how many Canada Border Services Agency officers have been trained and equipped with firearms as of April 23, 2012; (b) how much money was spent on related personnel, training and support programs in (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011, (vi) 2011-2012; (c) how much was spent on related infrastructure and equipment in (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011, (vi) 2011-2012; (d) how much has the total program cost to date; and (e) how much does the government expect to spend over the next four fiscal years on (i) training and support programs, (ii) infrastructure and equipment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 665--
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:
With regard to Canada's Economic Action Plan 2012, within the Heritage portfolio: (a) with respect to Library and Archives Canada, (i) where will positions be cut, broken down by branch, by division and by role, (ii) which programs and which services will be cut or eliminated; and (b) with respect to the Federal Libraries Consortium, (i) which federal libraries will be cut or eliminated, broken down by location, (ii) what will be done with the collections formerly maintained by any eliminated federal libraries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 666--
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:
With regard to government employment levels: (a) what is the current total number of federal employees in each province and territory, and outside Canada; and (b) what is the total number of anticipated job reductions in each province and territory and outside Canada for the fiscal years (i) 2012-2013, (ii) 2013-2014, (iii) 2014-2015?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 667--
Mr. Paul Dewar:
With regard to the procurement of temporary personnel services by the government over the last five years: (a) what are the total government expenditures for such services, for the five year period and also broken down by year; (b) what amount is spent by each department, broken down by year; (c) how much was spent annually, broken down by department or agency, in the National Capital Region alone; (d) what is the breakdown by province for such services; (e) which companies received contracts to provide temporary personnel services; (f) what is the annual combined total of all contracts awarded to each company; (g) how many people were hired by temporary employment agencies to work for the government, nationally as well as in the National Capital Region, for the five year period and also broken down by year; and (h) how many employees were hired on a temorary basis, nationally as well as in the National Capital Region, broken down by year and by department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 668--
Mr. Paul Dewar:
With regard to Canada's Action Plan for the Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security (NAP): (a) what progress has been made on each indicator, from 1-1 to 21-2, of the NAP, broken down by department; (b) how many meetings of the interdepartmental working group on the NAP have been convened between October 5, 2010, and April 30, 2012, broken down by date; (c) for each of the fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, how much funding has been allocated to the implementation of the NAP, broken down by department; (d) what unit within each department is responsible for the implementation of the NAP; (e) for each of the fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, how many full-time employees' job descriptions include the implementation of the NAP, broken down by department; (f) for each of the fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, how many full-time employees worked part-time on the implementation of the NAP, broken down by department; (g) what information is publicly available with regard to progress of implementation of the NAP, and where can this information be found; (h) with regard to the interim review of the NAP, including consultations, and broken down by department, (i) when will the review take place, (ii) what is the timeline, (iii) what is the process; (i) will the results of the review be made public; (j) when is the annual reporting period; (k) has an annual report been produced and, if so, where will it be made publicly available; and (l) will the annual report be tabled in Parliament?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 669--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to funding for CRC Sogema and its projects by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), for how many and for what projects has CIDA directly and indirectly funded CRC Sogema for the fiscal years from March 2009 to March 2012, broken down by project name, country involved, description, year, client and any other relevant details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 671--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the Local Initiative Fund (also referred to as the Local Initiative Grant program) administered by the regional development organization for Northern Ontario (FedNor), for each budget year from 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 inclusively: (a) what was the sum awarded to each federal riding; and (b) what was the name of each individual recipient and the amount awarded to that recipient, in each riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 675--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and more specifically the DFO Regional Office in Newfoundland and Labrador (White Hills): what official(s) at the regional office met with Mr. Loyola Sullivan of Ocean Choice International between June 1, 2011, and May 10, 2012, including (i) function and title of the official, (ii) date of the meeting(s), (iii) location of the meeting, (iv) topic(s) discussed, (v) any briefing notes or other materials prepared for or used at the meeting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 678--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With respect to the National Archival Development Program: (a) what is the name and location of each organization which received a grant or contribution under this program since March 31, 1999; (b) what was the amount of each such grant or contribution; (c) what was the purpose, scope, or intent of the work to be carried out using the funds provided by that grant or contribution; and (d) what is the rationale for the termination of the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 681--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the “Enabling Access Fund” administered by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, for each fiscal year of the program's existence, what are: (a) the program criteria and any evaluation method used to determine which programs will receive funding, including any changes to the criteria from year to year; and (b) details about each applicant, including (i) applicant's name, (ii) riding where the project is located, (iii) amount of funding awarded, (iv) criteria, both quantitative and non-quantitative, on the basis of which the applicant was evaluated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 684--
Mrs. Maria Mourani:
With regard to federal contaminated sites in Quebec: (a) what is the name and location of each contaminated site that has been classified as a high priority by the departments responsible; (b) how long has each of these sites been classified a high priority; (c) what contaminants have been identified at each of these sites; and (d) what is the timeline for the action required for each of these sites?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 685--
Mrs. Maria Mourani:
With regard to the contaminated federal sites in Quebec classified by government departments as being closed: (a) what is the name and location of each of these sites; (b) what are the required decontamination procedures that have been carried out on these sites to date by the department responsible; and (c) on which dates were these actions taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 687--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to Canadian Heritage youth programs: (a) concerning the Exchanges Canada program, over the last seven fiscal years, (i) what was the number of applications received per year, (ii) what was the number of applications accepted for each of these years, (iii) what was the number of applications rejected for each of these years, (iv) what were the bidding organizations whose proposals were accepted, (v) what was the value of the funding that these organizations received and for which period, (vi) for each of the organizations funded under this program, what was the number of participants, broken down by year, (vii) for each of the organizations funded under this program, what was the number of participants, broken down by province and territory, (viii) what are the budget estimates for 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, (ix) what was the program’s total budget over the last seven fiscal years, including 2011-2012; and (b) concerning the Youth Take Charge program, (i) what was the number of applications received per year since its creation, (ii) what was the number of applications accepted under this program for each year since its creation, (iii) what was the number of applications rejected under this program for each of these years, (iv) what were the bidding organizations whose proposals were accepted under this program, (v) what was the value of the funding that these organizations received and for which period, (vi) for each of the organizations funded under this program, what was the number of participants, broken down by year, (vii) for each of the organizations funded under this program, what was the number of participants, broken down by province and territory, (viii) what was the program’s total budget since its creation, broken down by year, including 2011-2012, (ix) what are the budget estimates for 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 688--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC): (a) for each fiscal year from 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 inclusively, what was, or is projected to be, the number of items of archival material digitized by LAC for reference and access purposes; (b) for each fiscal year from 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 inclusively, what percentage of LAC’s collection was, or is projected to be, digitized; (c) for each fiscal year from 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 inclusively, what were, or are projected to be, LAC’s internal costs for digitization and digital access; (d) for each fiscal year from 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 inclusively, what was, or is projected to be, the expected number of born digital records, both government and private, that will be acquired by LAC; and (e) for each fiscal year from 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 inclusively, what was, or is projected to be, the number of analogue records, both government and private, acquired by LAC?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 689--
Mr. Alain Giguère:
With regard to government funding allocated to the riding of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin: (a) what is the total amount of funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount, including the date the funding was allocated; (b) how many jobs within the riding were directly created by this funding, listing each department or agency, initiative and the number of jobs created within the riding; and (c) how many jobs outside the riding were directly created by this funding, listing each department or agency, initiative and the number of jobs created outside the riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 691--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With respect to the Canadian Forces Reserves: (a) what is the amount spent by the government on the Reserves, broken down by province and territory, for fiscal years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012; (b) what is the number of full-time reservists, broken down by province and territory, for the same periods as in (a); and (c) what is the number of part-time reservists, broken down by province and territory, for the same periods as in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 692--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With respect to certain personnel at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC), namely, Mary Chaput, Associate Deputy Minister; James Gilbert, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration; Keith Hillier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery Branch; Heather Parry, Assistant Deputy Minister; and Peter Yendall, Director General of Communications, for the period April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2012: (a) what does VAC provide for each individual in terms of salary range; (b) how much did each of these individuals claim for (i) food, (ii) travel, (iii) hotels, (iv) hospitality, broken down by fiscal year for the period requested; (c) what were the itemized amounts and descriptions of each individual’s individual expenses as identified in the answers to (b); (d) how many trips were taken by each of these individuals in each fiscal year for the period requested, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) destination(s), (iii) purpose(s); (e) for each trip in (d), what expenses were claimed, broken down by (i) transportation, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) any and all hospitality; and (f) how many days in each fiscal year for the period requested did each of these individuals work in (i) VAC headquarters in Prince Edward Island, (ii) Ottawa?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 693--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to the National Archival Development Program: (a) what is the name and location of each organization which has received a grant or contribution under this program since March 31, 1999; (b) what was the amount of each grant or contribution; (c) what was the purpose, scope, or intent of the work to be carried out using the funds provided by the grant or contribution; and (d) what is the rationale for the termination of the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 697--
Ms. Christine Moore:
With regard to the Canadian Forces (CF) recruiting centres: (a) which CF recruiting centres does the Department of National Defence plan to close; (b) when was the final decision taken to close these centres; (c) what type of assessment was done when deciding on the closures; (d) what consultations were held with the communities affected; (e) what analysis was done of the impact these closures would have on CF regional recruitment rates for the regular force, the reserve and cadet corps officers; (f) how many jobs will be lost as a result of the closures; (g) how many new recruits did each of these recruiting centres generate in 2011; and (h) what was the proportion of anglophone and francophone recruits for each of these centres in 2011?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 700--
Ms. Mylène Freeman:
With regard to government funding for building, repairing or upgrading septic systems or waste water treatment systems in the last 10 years, what is: (a) the name of the project or program; (b) the city, town or community in which the project or program took place; (c) the amount allocated to the project or program, broken down by (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan; (d) a description of each project or program; (e) the government department or agency from which the funding originated; and (f) the total amount of funding allocated, broken down by (i) city, town or community, (ii) province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 701--
Mr. Brian Masse:
What is the total amount of government funding since January 1, 2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Windsor West, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 703--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to recreational ski and snow sport helmets: (a) has Health Canada recommended listing helmets that do not meet the Canadian Standards Association Z263.1-08 standard for helmets under the Hazardous Products Act; (b) are helmets being inspected by Health Canada; (c) is the safety of helmets tested by Health Canada and, if not, why not; (d) if these helmets do not meet safety standards, are they denied entry into Canada; (e) does Health Canada track the number of these helmets imported; (f) what amount of money is spent each year beginning in 2004-2005 on (i) helmet safety, (ii) brain injury awareness, (iii) promotion of helmet use; (g) what is the estimated cost to the health care system and the Canadian economy for brain injuries resulting from failure to wear a helmet; and (h) are there any joint federal/provincial/territorial partnerships to encourage helmet use?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 705--
Ms. Christine Moore:
With regard to the Canadian Heritage Cultural Capitals of Canada program: (a) who were the candidates and winners for each of the three categories, identified by year, for every year since the program began; (b) for each of these years, who was on the expert advisory committee; (c) for each of these years, what recommendations did the expert advisory committee make for the recipients of the awards; (d) for each of these years, how many times did the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the time follow the recommendations of the expert advisory committee, and how many times did the Minister ignore them; (e) for the decision to name the 2012 Cultural Capitals of Canada, on what opinions and recommendations did the Minister of Canadian Heritage base his decisions; and (f) apart from the expert advisory committee, what other studies and consultations were carried out to help the Minister of Canadian Heritage make his selection for the 2012 Cultural Capitals of Canada, and what were the results?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 706--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to the use of government-issued credit cards by Ministerial exempt staff, for each Minister since February 6, 2006: (a) how many Ministerial exempt staff failed to pay the amount owing within the required time frame; (b) for each case identified in (a), (i) what is the name of the Ministerial exempt staff member, (ii) what was the amount owing; (c) how many Ministerial exempt staff used government-issued credit cards for non-governmental business; (d) for each case identified in (c), (i) what is the name of the Ministerial exempt staff member, (ii) what specific transactions were made and for what amounts; (e) how much has the government had to pay to cover the delinquent accounts of Ministerial exempt staff; and (f) of the amount in (e) how much has the government recovered from the relevant Ministerial exempt staff members?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 708--
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
With regard to the categorization in the Main Estimates of all information technology spending under the heading “Internal Services”, what is a more detailed breakdown of those aggregate expenditures for the fiscal year 2012-2013, specifically, hardware costs and software costs, including application software, operating system software, data management software, and security software, for: (a) Shared Services Canada; (b) Justice Canada; (c) the Department of National Defence; (d) Public Safety Canada; (e) Public Works and Government Services Canada; (f) Human Resources and Skills Development Canada; (g) the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade; (h) Treasury Board Secretariat; (i) the Department of Finance; (j) Citizenship and Immigration Canada; (k) Industry Canada; (l) Department of Canadian Heritage; (m) Transport Canada; (n) Health Canada; (o) Department of Fisheries and Oceans; (p) Environment Canada; (q) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada; (r) Natural Resources Canada; and (s) the Canada Revenue Agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 709--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to Canadian soldiers participating in nuclear testing in the United States: (a) what was the purpose of sending Canadian soldiers to participate in nuclear testing in the United States; (b) what, if any, disclosures were provided to participating Canadian soldiers outlining the risks and dangers of exposure to nuclear testing either before or after they participated in this testing; (c) what was date and year in which the government, including but not limited to the Department of National Defence, the Privy Council Office and Veterans Affairs Canada, received its first inquiry from a Canadian soldier seeking information as to why he or she participated in nuclear testing; (d) what was the date and year when the government, including but not limited to the Department of National Defence, the Privy Council Office and Veterans Affairs Canada, first provided advice to Ministers about possible exposure to financial liability as a result of sending Canadian soldiers to nuclear testing sites; (e) what is the total amount of money spent by the government, including but not limited to the Department of National Defence, the Privy Council Office and Veterans Affairs Canada, opposing any compensation to Canadian soldiers who participated in nuclear testing in the United States; (f) what is the amount of money paid to soldiers as compensation for participating in nuclear testing to date; and (g) what date and year did the government, in any internal document or disclosure provided to Ministers, receive advice, either before or after the nuclear testing in Nevada, that exposure to nuclear testing in Nevada or at any other place or time, might result in a diagnosis of cancer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 713--
Hon. John McCallum:
With respect to any program related to support for affordable housing, what is: (a) the name of the program; (b) the program activity the program falls under; (c) the annual spending for fiscal years (i) 2008-2009, (ii) 2009-2010, (iii) 2010-2011; and (d) the forecast spending for fiscal years (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014, (iv) 2014-2015?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 714--
Mr. Alex Atamanenko:
With regard to the horse slaughter industry in Canada: (a) how soon after killing must condemned carcasses or dead-on-arrival horse carcasses be rendered; (b) has the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) determined a maximum size (weight, backside width, and height) for horses permitted for slaughter at all Canadian plants slaughtering equine; (c) what specific changes have been instituted at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation since the CFIA became aware of July 2011 investigation evidence showing issues within the plant; (d) what procedures are in place regarding thoroughbreds and/or standardbreds and/or other branded/tattooed horses and/or horses accompanied with registration papers, to ensure that these horses have been legitimately consigned to the slaughter plant; (e) were any carcasses condemned at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation between July 11 and July 20, 2011, (i) what were the circumstances/reasons for condemning the carcasses, (ii) on what dates did this occur, (iii) what were the identification (tattoo/tag) numbers on the horses in question; (f) in the period from June 1, 2005, to June 1, 2012, inclusively, on what dates were inspections carried out at Viandes Richelieu, Bouvry Export Calgary, Canadian Premium Meats, Les Cerfs de Boileau and Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation to ensure that these operations comply with federal laws and regulations governing the environmental effects of horse slaughter operations on the air, ground, and water in surrounding areas, (i) what findings were included in inspection reports; (g) on what dates were environmental inspections conducted on all Canadian equine feedlots or holding areas, (i) what were the findings included in inspection reports; (h) what reports or evaluations exist regarding the adequacy of the screening, testing, identification, and treatment histories of horses slaughtered in Canada for human consumption; (i) on what dates in the period from June 1, 2005, to the present did the government inspect Natural Valley Farms (Natural Meat Company) for suspected violations of environmental laws and/or regulations, (i) what were the findings included in each inspection report; (j) what guarantees does the government require from United States authorities regarding the accuracy of the Equine Identification Document for horses imported by Canada to be slaughtered; (k) on what dates were discussions or negotiations held between Canadian government officials and United States authorities regarding the European Union’s Final Audit Report of December 6, 2012, (i) what agreements were reached as a result of these negotiations; (l) what substances are banned in Canada for use in horses to be slaughtered for human consumption, (i) how is the ban enforced, (ii) how many violations or infractions has the government issued penalties for in each of the years between 2005 to the present; (m) what are the titles and dates of all government-commissioned reports and evaluations regarding the adequacy of the screening and testing, identification, and treatment histories of horses slaughtered in Canada for human consumption between 2005 to the present; and (n) what guarantees does the government require from United States authorities regarding the accuracy of Equine Identification Documents for horses imported by Canada destined for slaughter for human consumption?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 717--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and the Minister of Industry: (a) what are the mandates or instructions given by the Ministers to the following institutions, (i) National Research Council, (ii) Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, (iii) Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, (iv) Canadian Institutes of Health Research; (b) what files, records, documents, materials and information, directives, policies or other information were provided to the Ministers in order for them to give the instructions to the institutions in (a); and (c) what files, records, documents, and other materials, regarding or containing ministerial instructions, directives, policies or other information, were provided by Minister of State for Science and Technology or the Minister of Industry to the various departmental heads, personnel and officials of the institutions in (a) regarding or containing procedural or instructional directives?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 719--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the representation of First Nation, Métis, Inuit or Aboriginal Canadians employed by Correctional Service Canada (CSC): (a) broken down by province and territory and by calendar year from 1990 until 2012, (i) what was the number of CSC employees, (ii) how many of CSC’s employees were First Nation, Métis, Inuit or Aboriginal Canadians, (iii) what percentage of CSC employees were First Nation, Métis, Inuit or Aboriginal Canadians; and (b) broken down by province and territory and by calendar year from 1990 until 2012, (i) what was the number of management-level CSC employees, (ii) how many management-level CSC employees were First Nation, Métis, Inuit or Aboriginal Canadians, (iii) what percentage of management-level CSC employees were First Nation, Métis, Inuit or Aboriginal Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 720--
Ms. Sgro (York West) :
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) how many Temporary Resident Permits have been issued for individuals suspected to be victims of human trafficking; (b) how many Temporary Resident Permits have been renewed for individuals suspected to be victims of human trafficking; (c) how many Temporary Work Permits have been issued to individuals who are exotic dancers; and (d) how many Temporary Work Permits have been renewed for individuals who are exotic dancers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 722--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to the Department of National Defence's Headquarters, for each fiscal quarter since 2006, how many bottles of water have been purchased and what is the cost of these acquisitions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 724--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to the moving of responsibility for the F-35 purchase from the Department of National Defence (DND) to an F-35 secretariat in the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC): (a) how many people will be affected by this move; (b) when will this move take place; and (c) what is the total cost of transferring oversight of this project to PWGSC from DND?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 726--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the Minister of National Defence, since August 14, 2007: (a) how many gifts has the Minister received; and (b) for each gift, what is (i) a detailed description of the gift, (ii) the name of the person or organization that gave the gift to the Minister, (iii) the value of each gift?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 729--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the regulatory requirements for off-label use of a medical device and the special access program: (a) what are the federal regulations that control off-label use of a medical device already approved in Canada; (b) when a device such as a "stent" is proposed to be used by a licensed Canadian surgeon or interventional radiologist for the treatment of a medical condition not originally approved by the Medical Devices Bureau, (i) is there a requirement for a separate set of clinical trials or does such use fall under provincial jurisdiction and their practice of medicine guidelines, (ii) and if off-label use falls under provincial jurisdiction, why did the federal government intervene regarding the new procedure for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI); (c) what are the regulatory requirements for the special access program that allows practitioners to request access to drugs or devices that are not currently approved for use in Canada for patients with serious or life threatening conditions, (i) why did the procedure for chronic CCSVI fail to meet the specified requirements on a compassionate or emergency basis when conventional therapies have failed, are unsuitable, or are unavailable, (ii) how did kidney denervation meet the specified requirements; (d) how many CCSVI procedures worldwide have been performed to date, (i) how many positive and negative peer-reviewed CCSVI studies have been published to date, (ii) how many Canadians are estimated to have had the procedure for CCSVI since January 2010, and how many of them have been followed to date, (iii) how many phase II and phase III clinical trials for CCSVI are currently underway internationally, (iv) in light of the safety findings reported on 1375 patients studied in eight recently published clinical trials on CCSVI, why is Canada beginning with a phase I study; and (e) how many procedures worldwide have been performed for kidney denervation, (i) how many positive and negative peer reviewed studies have been published to date, (ii) had the procedure been assessed through a double-blind trial with a placebo group when the procedure was approved in Canada, (iii) how many safety studies have been published to date, and what is the complication rate, (iv) what phase clinical trials are currently underway internationally, (v) will Canada be undertaking phased clinical trials?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 730--
Mr. Glenn Thibeault:
With regard to Health Canada's Consumer Product Safety Directorate, since 2005-2006, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many product safety tests have been conducted; (b) how many product safety tests have resulted in consumer product recalls; (c) how many field inspections have been conducted; (d) how many field inspections have resulted in consumer product recalls; (e) how may product safety tests have resulted in fines; (f) how many inspections have resulted in fines; (g) what is the total monetary value of each fine levied; (h) what is the value of each product seizure which resulted from product safety tests; (i) what is the value of each product seizure which resulted from field inspections; (j) what is the average number of inspections conducted per inspector; and (k) what is the ratio of physical inspections to administrative inspections?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 731--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the multiple sclerosis (MS) drugs, Tysabri and Gilenya: (a) before these drugs were approved for use in Canada, what detailed processes were undertaken to ensure safety, efficacy and quality and historically, (i) how many drugs have been reviewed, (ii) how has the review process been resolved, including, but not limited to, (iii) how many drugs have been pulled from the market, (iv) how many drugs have been given new prescription criteria, (v) how many drugs have been put back on the market; (b) when (start month and year to end month and year) and where (company/research facility and country) did the phase l clinical trials take place for each drug, (i) how many MS patients were enrolled for each trial, (ii) for each trial, how many controls were used, (iii) for each trial, which variables were controlled, (iv) which medical specialists monitored the patients during each trial and afterward, (v) how was a safe dosage determined for each drug, (vi) what was the safe dosage range for each drug, (vii) what side effects were identified for each drug, (viii) why was it decided to move ahead to a phase ll trial for each drug; (c) what, if any, other information was reviewed beyond the phase I trial for each drug; (d) when (start month and year to end month and year) and where (company/research facility and country) did the phase ll clinical trials take place for each drug, (i) how many MS patients were enrolled for each trial, (ii) for each trial, how many controls were used, (iii) for each trial, what variables were controlled, (iv) which medical specialists monitored the patients during each trial and afterward, (v) what was the safe dosage range for each drug, (vi) what evidence was there that each drug was safe, (vii) what evidence was there that each drug was effective, (viii) why was it decided to move ahead to a phase llI trial for each of the drugs; (e) what, if any, other information was reviewed beyond the phase II trial for each drug; (f) when (start month and year to end month and year) and where (company/research facility and country) did the phase Ill clinical trials take place for each drug, (i) for each trial, how many MS patients were enrolled, (ii) for each trial, how many controls were used, (iii) for each trial, what variables were controlled , (iv) which medical specialists monitored the patients during each trial and afterward, (v) what was the safe dosage range for each drug, (vi) what evidence was there that each drug was safe, (vii) what evidence was there that each drug was effective, (viii) what side effects were identified for each drug, (ix) how did the two drugs compare to commonly used treatments, (x) what information was collected that would allow the two drugs to be used safely, (xi) why was it was decided to move ahead to market both drugs; (g) what, if any, other information was reviewed beyond the phase III trial for each of the drugs; (h) Tysabri was known to cause progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a rare brain disorder that usually causes death or severe disability, (i) what was the benefit/risk profile for the drug, (ii) why did Health Canada choose to fast-track the drug, (iii) did the MS Society of Canada support the fast-tracking of Tysabri, (iv) why did Health Canada not make monitoring mandatory, as was done in the United States, (v) was the decision regarding monitoring ever changed and, if so, when, (vi) how does 252 confirmed cases of PML and 52 deaths fit with Health Canada’s benefit/risk profile; (i) Gilenya was known to slow a patient’s heart rate down, especially after the first dose, but the heart rate usually returned to normal within one month, (i) what was the benefit/risk profile for the drug, (ii) did anyone die during clinical trials and, if so, how many people, (iii) what evidence was provided regarding the source of deaths, (iv) how was risk assessed; (j) based on the information in (i), was there any group identified who should not take the drug, (i) particularly those with cardiovascular and/or cerebrovascular disease; (k) what percentage of MS patients have cardiovascular and/or cerebrovascular disease, and (i) when did the information in (k) become known; (l) were Canadian physicians involved in the phase 1-III clinical trials for Tysabri/Gilenya and, if so, (i) did they receive financial assistance from Biogen Idec or Novartis, (ii) did they provide support or recommendation for either of the drugs to the government, (iii) did they ever serve on any expert panel to the government regarding MS; (m) what assistance has Biogen Idec and Novartis provided to the MS Society of Canada or any of the Society’s funded scientists, (i) was there an involvement from the MS Society of Canada in the phase I-III clinical trials for Tysabri and Gilenya and, if so, (ii) did they receive any financial assistance from Biogen Idec and Novartis, (iii) did the Society or any of its board members, scientists or other members provide any support or recommendation for the drugs to the government, (iv) did the Society or any of its board members, scientists or other members serve on any expert panel to the government regarding MS; (n) what phase IV clinical trials have been undertaken for drugs in (i) Canada and by whom, and (ii) internationally; (o) when were the drugs first marketed in Canada, (i) when were the drugs first available in Canada, (ii) when were problems or signals first identified for each drug in Canada and internationally; (p) what do adverse reaction reports in Canada and internationally show for each drug, and what is the (i) Canadian and (ii) international data for each drug; (q) which countries have placed either of the two drugs under review, and for each drug, identify the start date of the review for each country; (r) did Health Canada put Gilenya under review on February 28th, 2012, because (i) safety concerns were identified, (ii) causal relationships were established, (iii) serious adverse events, including 11 deaths reported internationally, or (iv) of other reasons, and, if so, (v) identify the reasons; (s) for what reasons is the continued prescribing of Gilenya permitted despite the incidence of deaths internationally, and have any further deaths occurred since the drug has been under review; (t) what, if any, monitoring takes place to ensure that healthcare professionals are following the Health Canada advisory urging them to continue to follow Gilenya’s labelling instructions closely, particularly with respect to patient monitoring; (u) while Gilenya has been under review in Canada, have other medical agencies internationally provided any additional evidence and warnings, and, if so, what are the details, including whether Canada has followed suit; (v) what are the details of all actions taken by Health Canada to monitor the safety of Tysabri and Gilenya while the drugs have been on the market, including (i) adverse reaction reports in Canada and internationally, (ii) post-market studies, (iii) published data, (iv) international safety data, (v) collaboration with international counterparts; (w) what are the details of all information about Tysabri and Gilenya that has been obtained by Health Canada through (i) adverse reaction reports in Canada and internationally, (ii) post-market studies, (iii) published data, (iv) international safety data, (v) collaboration with international counterparts; (x) what, if any, collaboration takes place between Health Canada and Biogen Idec and Novartis to ensure that the safety profile of the drugs is monitored on an ongoing basis; (y) what are the details of the drug review process in the case of Gilenya, including (i) start and end date, (ii) Canadian and international information to be reviewed, (iii) reviewers, (iv) international partners, (v) benefit/risk profiles and thresholds, (vi) milestones, (vii) other relevant information; (z) what timeline does the government’s policy provide to communicate any new safety information that may arise concerning Gilenya; and (aa) what actions does Health Canada plan to take following the review of Gilenya?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 732--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the anticipated arrival of debris on Canada's west coast from the 2011 Japanese (Tohoku) earthquake: (a) how has the government prepared for the arrival of the debris on the west coast of Canada; (b) does the government still expect a 2014 arrival date; (c) has the government created a contingency plan and, if so, what is it; (d) what are the current best estimates for the total cost of implementing this plan; (e) which federal departments or agencies are involved or are expected to become involved in this matter; (f) has an environmental impact assessment of the debris hitting the west coast (i) been conducted or (ii) currently being conducted or (iii) is there a plan for such an assessment in the works; (g) which provincial counterparts has the government been consulting with; (h) has the government liaised with the US federal government and/or any US states for coordinating a response plan and, if so, which states; (h) has the government allocated funding towards this problem and, if so, what is the amount; (i) which departments and other entities will be allocated these funds; and (j) does the government anticipate the arrival of any radioactive debris and, if so, what is its plan for mitigating the potential dangers of this debris?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 734--
Mr. Alex Atamanenko:
With regard to genetically modified seeds, crops and food: (a) what were the findings or conclusions in the reviews conducted by the government on each of the following scientific studies and reports, (i) Aziz Arisa, Samuel Leblanc. “Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada”. Reproductive Toxicology (2011), doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004; [http://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf], (ii) T. Watanabe, T. Iwase. “Developmental and dysmorphogenic effects of glufosinate ammonium on mouse embryos in culture”. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 1996;16:287-299; [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9178451], (iii) G.S. Johal, D.M. Huber. “Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants”. European Journal of Agronomy (2009) 31:144-152; [http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/services/huber-glyphosates-2009.pdf], (iv) Aaron J. Gassmann, Jennifer L. Petzold-Maxwell, Ryan S. Keweshan, Mike W. Dunbar. “Field-Evolved Resistance to Bt Maize by Western Corn Rootworm”. (2011) PLoS ONE 6(7): e22629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.002269 [http://www.plosone.org/article/citationList.action;jsessionid=04DCC2DA2B1593F5B13D0D0E3FA50476?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022629, (v) Bruce Tabashnik and Fred Gould. “Delaying Corn Rootworm Resistance to Bt Corn,” Journal of Economic Entomology - Entomological Society of America” (2012); [http://www.entsoc.org/press-releases/larger-refuges-needed-sustain-success-transgenic-corn], (vi) A. Pusztai. “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food?” Nutrition and Health (2002) 16:73-84; [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12102369], (vii) J.A. Magana-Gomez, A.M. de la barca. “Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health” Nutrition Reviews (2009) 67:1-16; [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501], (viii) Andrea Borchers, Suzanne S. Teuber, Carl L. Keen, M. Eric Gershwin. “Food safety”. Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology (2010) 39:95–141; [http://www.alergia.org.ar/profesionales/emc/prodaai2011/web/material/13_parisi/03.pdf], (ix) Gilles-Eric Séralini, Robin Mesnage, Emilie Clair, Steeve Gress, Joël S de Vendômois and Dominique Cellier. “Genetically modified crops safety assessments: Present limits and possible improvements”. Environmental Sciences Europe (2011), 23:10 DOI:10.1186/2190-4715-23-10. [http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10], (x) Gilles-Eric Séralini, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, Dominique Cellier, Charles Sultan, Marcello Buiatti, Lou Gallagher, Michael Antoniou, Krishna R. Dronamraju. “How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals”. International Journal of Biological Sciences (2009) 5:438-443; [http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm], (xi) Appenzeller LM, Munley SM, Hoban D, Sykes GP, Malley LA, Delaney B. “Subchronic feeding study of grain from herbicide-tolerant maize DP-O9814O-6 in Sprague-Dawley rats”. Food and Chemical Toxicology (2009) 47:2269-2280; [http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10], (xii) IV Ermakova. “Influence of soy with gene EPSPS CP4 on the physiological state and reproductive functions of rats in the first two generations”. Russian Academy of Natural Sciences--Modern problems of science and education No. 5, (2009). UDC: 612.82, 57.02, (xiii) Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier, Gilles-Eric Séralini. “A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health”. International Journal of Biological Sciences (2009); 5(7):706-726. [http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm], (xiv) Artemis Dona, Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis. “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods”. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (2009); 49:164–175; [http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img_editor/file/Dona&Arvanitoyannis2009.pdf], (xv) Jack A. Heinemann. “Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed”. (2009) Gendora / Commerce Commission of New Zealand; [https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=bc216ec5-64ed-4033-9ac7-65eed8eaa488], (xvi) Laura M Appenzeller, Linda Malley, Susan A MacKenzie, Denise Hoban, Bryan Delaney. “Subchronic feeding study with genetically modified stacked trait lepidopteran and coleopteran resistant (DAS-O15O7-1xDAS-59122-7) maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats”. Food and Chemical Toxicology (2009) 47:1512-1520, (xvii) LM Appenzeller, SM Munley, D Hoban, GP Sykes, LA Malley, B Delaney. “Subchronic feeding study of herbicide-tolerant soybean DP-356O43-5 in Sprague-Dawley rats”. Food and Chemical Toxicology (2008) 46:2201-2213, (xviii) Mae Wan Ho. “GM DNA Does Jump Species: Antibiotic Resistance not the Only Risk”. Institute for Science in Society (2010) ISIS Report 14/06/10 [http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDNA_Does_Jump_Species.php], (xx) A Velimirov, C Binter, J Zentek. “Biological effects of transgenic maize K603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice”. (2008) Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3. Institut für Ernährung, and Forschungsinttitut für biologischen Landbau,Vienna, Austria [http://www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf], (xxi) Manuela Malatesta, Federica Boraldi, Giulia Annovi, Beatrice Baldelli, SeraWna Battistelli, Marco Biggiogera, Daniela Quaglino. “A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: Effects on liver ageing”. Histochem Cell Biol (2008) 130:967–977 DOI 10.1007/s00418-008-0476-x; [http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img_editor/file/fetgeratessojaMalatesta2008(2).pdf], (xxii) M Malatesta, F Perdoni, G Santin, S Battistelli, S Muller, M Biggiogera. “Hepatoma tissue culture (HTC) cells as a model for investigating the effects of low concentrations of herbicide on cell structure and function”. Toxicology In Vitro (2008) 22:1853-1860, (xxiii) B Cisterna, F Flach, L Vecchio, SM Barabino, S Battistelli, TE Martin, M Malatesta, M Biggiogera. “Can a genetically-modified organism-containing diet influence embryo development? A preliminary study on pre-implantation mouse embryos”. European Journal of Histochemistry (EJH). (2008) 52:263-7, (xxiv) A Finamore, M Roselli, S Britti, G Monastra, R Ambra, A Turrini, E Mengheri. “Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice”. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2008) 56:11533-11539, (xxv) A Kilic, MT Akay. “A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation”. Food and Chemical Toxicology (2008): 46(3): 1164-1170, (xxvi) S Kroghsbo, C Madsen, M Poulsen, M Schrøder, PH Kvist, M Taylor, A Gatehouse, Q Shu, I Knudsen. “Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expressing PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats”. Toxicology (2008) 12: 245:24-34, (xxvii) Massimo Trabalza-Marinucci, Giorgio Brandi, Cristina Rondini, Luca Avellini, Camilla Giammarini, Silva Costarelli, Gabriele Acuti, Chiara Orlandi, Giovanni Filippini, Elisabetta Chiaradia, Manuela Malatesta, Silvia Crotti, Chiara Antonini, Giulia Amagliani, Elisabetta Manuali, Anna Rita Mastrogiacomo, Livia Moscati, Mohamed Naceur Haouet, Alberto Gaiti, Mauro Magnani. “A three year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance on sheep”. Livestock Science (2008)113:178–190; [http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img_editor/file/Trabalzaetal2008Bt176ovejas.pdf], (xxviii) Y Sakamoto, Y Tada, N Fukumori, K Tayama, H Ando, H Takahashi, Y Kubo, A Nagasawa, N Yano, K Yuzawa, A Ogata. “A 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in f344 rats”. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zassh. Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan. (2008) 49(4):272-82, (xxix) GE Séralini, D Cellier, JS de Vendomois. “New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (2007) 52:596-602, (xxx) SA MacKenzie, I Lamb, J Schmidt, L Deege, MJ Morrisey, M Harper, RJ Layton, LM Prochaska, C Sanders, M Locke, JL Mattsson, A Fuentes, B Delaney. “Thirteen week feeding study with transgenic maize grain containing event DAS-O15O7-1 in Sprague-Dawley rats”. Food and Chemical Toxicology. (2007) 45:551-562, (xxxi) GG Guerrero, WM Russel, L Moreno-Fierros. “Analysis of the cellular immune response induced by Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxins in mice: Effect of the hydrophobic motif from diphtheria toxin”. Molecular Immunology (2007); 44:1209-1217, (xxxii) José L. Domingo. “Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: A review of the published literature”. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 47:721–733 (2007); [http://www.biosafety.ru/ftp/domingo.pdf], (xxxiii) Joe Cummins. “Glyphosate resistance in weeds: The Transgenic Treadmill”. Institute for Science in Society, (2010) ISIS Report 03/03/10. [http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosateResistanceTransgenicTreadmil.php], (xxxiv) A Pusztai, S Bardocz. “GMO in animal nutrition potential benefits and risks. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals”. (ed. Mosenthin, R. Zentek, J.and Zebrowska, T.) Elsevier Limited (2006), pp. 513-540, (xxxv) Gilles-Eric Séralini, Robin Mesnage, Emilie Clair, Steeve Gress, Joël S de Vendômois, Dominique Cellier. “Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements”. Environmental Sciences Europe (2011), 23:10 doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-10 [http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10], (xxxvi) Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Séralini. “Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells”. Chemical Research in Toxicology (2009) 22: 97–105; [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n?prevSearch=Glyphosate%2Bformulations%2Binduce%2Bapoptosis%2Band%2Bnecrosis%2Bin%2Bhuman%2Bumbilical%252C%2Bembryonic%252C%2Band%2Bplacental%2Bcells&searchHistoryKey=], (xxxvii) G Gasnier, C Dumont, N Benachour, E Clair, MC Changon, GE Séralini. “Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines”. Toxicology (2009) 21:262:184-191, (xxxviii) Michael Antoniou, Paulo Brack, Andrés Carrasco, John Fagan, Mohamed Habib, Paulo Kageyama, Carlo Leifert, Rubens Onofre Nodari, Walter Pengue. “GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?” GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG www.gls.de / ARGE Gentechnik-frei (2010) [http://www.gmwatch.eu/images/pdf/gm_full_eng_v15.pdf], (xxxiv) P. Jost, D. Shurley, S. Culpepper, P. Roberts, R. Nichols, J. Reeves, and S. Anthony. “Economic comparison of transgenic and nontransgenic cotton production systems in Georgia”. Agronomy Journal (2008) 100, 42-51. (doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0259); [http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/17545/PDF], (xl) Olivier De Schutter. “Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food” United Nations A/HRC/16/49 General Assembly Sixteenth session, Agenda item 3 (20 December 2010) [http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf], (xli) ZD Zhang, S Weissmann, M Snyder. “What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition”. Genome Research 2007; 17:669-681; [http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/669.full], (xlii) Joe Cummins. “Glyphosate resistance in weeds: The Transgenic Treadmill”. Institute for Science in Society, ISIS Report, 03 March 2010. [http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosateResistanceTransgenicTreadmil.php], (xliii) Brett Cherry. “GM crops increase herbicide use in the United States”. Institute for Science in Society Report, ISIS Report 18/01/10. [http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsIncreasedHerbicide.php], (xliv) Ismail Cakmak, Atilla Yazici, Yusuf Tutus, Levent Ozturk. “Glyphosate reduced seed and leaf concentrations of calcium, magnesium, manganese, and iron in non-glyphosate resistant soybean”. European Journal of. Agronomy (2009); 31:114-119; [http://stopogm.net/webfm_send/54], (xlv) MR Fernandez, RP Zentner, P Basnyat, D Gehl, F Selles, and DM Huber. “Glyphosate associations with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian Prairies” European Journal of Agronomy (2009) 31:133-143 [http://www4.agr.gc.ca/abstract-resume/abstract-resume.htm?lang=eng&id=15979000000229], (xlvi) T Yamada, RJ Kremer, PR Camargo e Castro, BW Wood. “Glyphosate interactions with physiology, nutrition, and diseases of plants: Threat to agricultural sustainability?” European Journal of Agronomy (2009) 31:111-113; [http://stopogm.net/webfm_send/131], (xlvii) IJ Mauro, SM McLachlan. “Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: Postrelease evaluation of herbicide-tolerant canola in Western Canada”. Risk Analysis (2008) 28:463-76, (xlviii) IJ Mauro, SM McLachlan, RC Van Acker. “Farmer knowledge and a priori risk analysis: Pre-release evaluation of genetically modified Roundup Ready wheat across the Canadian prairies” Environmental Science and Pollution Research International (2009); 16:689-701, (xlix) S Bott, T Tesfamariam, A Kania, B Eman, N Aslan, V Roemheld, G Neumann. “Phytotoxicity of glyphosate soil residues re-mobilised by phosphate fertilization”. Plant Soil (2011) 315:2-11. DOI 10, 1007/s11104-010-06989-3, (li) RJ Kremer, NE Means. “Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop interactions with rhizosphere microorganisms”. European Journal of Agronomy. (2009). 31:153-161, (lii) Miranda M. Hart, Jeff R. Powell, Robert H. Gulden, David J. Levy-Booth, Kari E. Dunfield, K. Peter Pauls, Clarence J. Swanton, John N. Klironomos and Jack T. Trevors. “Detection of transgenic cp4 epsps genes in the soil food web”. Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2009); Volume 29, Number 4, 497-501, DOI: 10.1051/agro/2009020, (liii) JS de Vendômois, D Cellier, C Vélot, E Clair, R Mesnage, GE Séralini. “Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests”. International Journal of Biological Science (2010) 6:590-598, (liv) Mae Wan Ho. “Scientists discover new route for GM-gene “Escape””. Institute for Science in Society Report (2011), ISIS Report 02/03/11. [http://www.i-sis.org.uk/new_route_for_GM_gene_escape.php]; (b) what actions has the government taken as a result of their reviews on these studies; (c) will the government make any changes to the regulations governing genetically modified crops and food as a result of these scientific studies; (d) what is the government’s process for reviewing (i) independent and (ii) industry science on genetically engineered seeds, crops and food; and (e) to what extent does the government rely on scientific data provided by the companies seeking approvals for new products?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 735--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to the attendance at public events of ten government Ministers on June 4, 2012, as listed in the Media Advisory from the Department of Natural Resources entitled “Harper Government Ministers Participate in Events from Coast to Coast to Highlight the Importance of Responsible Resource Development to Canadians” and dated June 3, 2012: (a) for each Minister’s travel, what was the (i) itinerary of their flight, including the departure city and destination, (ii) number of people travelling with each Minister and their title or position, (iii) travel itinerary for each person travelling with each Minister including their departure city and destination, (iv) cost for each flight for each of the Ministers and all persons travelling with each Minister, (v) costs for all ground transportation, per diems, and accommodations for each Minister and for each person travelling with each Minister, (vi) calculated greenhouse gas emissions for all flights and ground transportation; (b) what related press releases were sent to any media outlets from any department, agency or crown corporation; (c) what are the costs associated with consultants (i.e. non-governmental employees) that provided any service before, during or after the listed events of June 4, 2012, and what are the costs of any associated public opinion polling; (d) for each announcement or speech, what was the (i) cost for room rental, audio-visual equipment, room setup, and related personnel, (ii) announcement/speech, (iii) number of people in attendance, (iv) number of media in attendance, (v) number of local “media hits”, (vi) the number of national “media hits”; (e) what was the total cost to taxpayers for each event; and (f) what was the total estimated green house gas emissions for each event?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 737--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to federally run correctional institutions within the province of Ontario: (a) for each institution and broken down by year, what is the allotment of federal funds budgeted towards each of the following items from 2000 until the present year, and what was the amount of funds actually spent on each of the following items, from 2000 until the present year, (i) Institutional Management and Support, (ii) Institutional Security, (iii) Institutional Services (excluding Exchange of Service Agreements (ESA)), (iv) Offender Case Management (excluding Aboriginals), (v) Community Engagement, (vi) Community Management and Security, (vii) Community Based Residential Facilities, (viii) Management and Oversight, (ix) Public Policy, (x) Human Resources (training), (xi) Supply Chain Management, (xii) Facilities/Asset Management, (xiii) Legal Services, (xiv) Public Affairs/Communication, (xv) Evaluation Services, (xvi) Other Support Delivery Services, (xvii) Institutional Services (ESA), (xviii) Offender Case Management (Aboriginal), (xix) Spiritual Services, (xx) Correctional Integration Program, (xxi) Offender Education, (xxii) Employment and Employability, (xxiii) Community Management and Security, (xxiv) Human Resources (excluding training), (xxv) Finance, (xxvi) Institutional Health Services, (xxvii) Community Health Services, (xxviii) Human Resources (training), (xxix) Informational Management, (xxx) Information Technological Services, (xxxi) Other Support Delivery Services, (xxxii) Full Time Equivalents, (xxxiii) Salaries (excluding overtime), (xxxiv) Overtime Conversion Cost, (xxxv) Operating, (xxxvi) Exchange of Service Agreement, (xxxvii) Crown Asset- O&M, (xxxviii) Grants and Contributions, (xxxix) Minor Construction, (xl) Capital Equipment, (xli) Total TB (Treasury Board) Operating Allotments, (xlii) Total TB Capital Allotments, (xliii) Total Institutional Allotment; (b) what requests for funds for construction projects were made by each institution for each year from 2000 to the present, broken down by year and by institution; (c) what construction projects were undertaken by each institution for each year from 2000 to the present, broken down by institution and by year; (d) for each of the construction projects listed in (c), (i) what was the amount of funding requested by the institution for each project, (ii) was the allocated budget for each project, (iii) what was the actual amount of money spent on each project; (e) what future construction projects, if any, have already been approved and agreed to and what funds have been allocated for this purpose; (f) what requests for funds for maintenance projects were made by each institution for each year from 2000 to the present, broken down by year and by institution; (g) what maintenance projects were undertaken by each institution for each year from 2000 to the present, broken down by institution and by year; (h) for each of the maintenance projects listed in (g) (i) what was the amount of funding requested by the institution for each project, (ii) what was the allocated budget for each project, (iii) what was the actual amount of money spent on each project; and (i) what future maintenance projects, if any, have already been approved and agreed to and what funds have been allocated for this purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 738--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the debris from the tsunami in Japan in 2011: (a) has the government evaluated the environmental impact, and, (i) if yes, what are the results of this evaluation, (ii) if no, why has no evaluation been done; (b) has the government evaluated the impact of this debris on the Canadian economy, and, (i) if yes, what are the results of this evaluation, (ii) if no, why has no evaluation been done; and (c) what are the titles of the documents, studies or reports that have been prepared for the government that address this event, in whole or in part?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 739--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the case of Mr. Robert Bolden, a Canadian citizen on death row in Indiana, United States of America: (a) when was the government first informed of this case; (b) by whom was the government informed; (c) how was the government informed; (d) which Department of Justice officials have been appointed to work on this case; (e) which Foreign Affairs officials have been appointed to work on this case; (f) what forms of consular assistance have been provided to Mr. Bolden; (g) on what dates has Mr. Bolden been visited by Consular officials; (h) what forms of consular assistance will be provided to Mr. Bolden in the future and which officials are responsible for providing this consular assistance; (i) have any Canadian government officials been present at hearings or meetings regarding this case, (i) who are these officials, (ii) when did these hearings or meetings take place; (j) have any Canadian government officials made any written or oral statements or presentations during the hearings or meetings referred to in (i); (k) what was the content of said written or oral statement as referred to in (j); (l) what steps has the Canadian government taken to verify whether Mr. Bolden is a Canadian citizen, (i) who was responsible for this verification process, (ii) what have been the results of this verification process; (m) what steps have been taken to monitor the status of Mr. Bolden’s health and the maintenance of basic needs; and (n) what representations have been made to US authorities regarding Mr. Bolden’s case, (i) by whom, (ii) on what dates?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 740--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the recent job cuts at the Department of National Defence (DND): (a) what is the current number of DND employees working to address the mental health of soldiers and veterans and how has this number changed since 2000; (b) how many current members of the Canadian Forces have a diagnosable mental health condition; (c) how many veterans of the Canadian Forces have a diagnosable mental health condition; (d) how many veterans of the Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan have a diagnosable mental health condition; (e) how many veterans of the Canadian Forces mission in Bosnia have a diagnosable mental health condition; (f) how have the numbers in (b) and (c) changed since 2000; (g) who at DND is responsible for decisions on cuts concerning mental health personnel; (h) who is responsible for recommending and executing job cuts at the DND’s Deployment Mental Health Research Section as well as at the DND’s epidemiology section; (i) what criteria are used by the individual(s) referred to in (h) to evaluate the need for job cuts and the subsequent impact of those cuts on mental health service delivery; (j) are the individuals referred to in (g) required in any way, when they recommend cuts, to consider year-to-year changes in rates of Canadian Forces members who exhibit Post-Traumatic Stress symptoms or suicidal ideation; (k) who at DND is responsible for formulating projections of future mental illness rates upon the return to Canada of Canadian Forces members currently deployed abroad; (l) what sources of information and what criteria are used to formulate the projections referred to in (k); (m) what is the average wait time for a Canadian soldier stationed in Petawawa, Ontario to see a psychiatrist or psychologist; (n) after the current round of cuts takes effect, how does DND project the wait time referred to in (m) will be affected (expressed in units of time); (o) what were the criteria used in formulating the decision to close the National Defence Health Services Centre; (p) where will DND be referring patients of the National Defence Health Services Centre when it closes; (q) what is the role of the Chief of the Defence Staff in addressing mental illness among soldiers and veterans; and (r) who is responsible for evaluating the performance of the Chief of the Defence Staff in fulfilling the role referred to in (q)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 741--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With respect to Canadians victimized abroad: (a) who serves as the point of contact for information regarding resources that are available to Canadian citizens; (b) what information is provided to Embassies and Consulates abroad with respect to medical evacuation and the Canada Victims Fund; (c) what measures are in place to ensure Embassy and Consular staff inform Canadian citizens victimized abroad about medical evacuation and the Canada Victims Fund; (d) with respect to medical evacuation, (i) how does one apply for this, (ii) who reviews applications, (iii) what criteria are used for evaluating applications, (iv) who is responsible for informing applicants of a decision, (v) what process is used to determine the decision, (vi) what is the average processing time for applications, (vii) what is the average delay for informing applicants of the decision, (viii) how many applications are received each year, (ix) how many of the said applications are approved, (x) what cost limits are in place; and (e) with respect to the Canada Victims Fund, (i) how does one apply for this, (ii) who reviews applications, (iii) what criteria are used for evaluating applications, (iv) who is responsible for informing applicants of a decision, (v) what process is used to determine the decision, (vi) what is the average processing time for applications, (vii) what is the average delay for informing applicants of the decision, (viii) how many applications are received each year, (ix) how many of the said applications are approved, (x) what is the amount for which an applicant is eligible and how is this determined?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 742--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With respect to the War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Program: (a) since its inception, how much funding has been committed to the program for each fiscal year; (b) for each fiscal year since its inception, which portion of the funding has come from (i) the Department of Justice, (ii) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (iii) Citizenship and Immigration Canada, (iv) the Canada Border Services Agency; (c) what is the total funding projected for the program for each of the ten next fiscal years; (d) for each of the next ten fiscal years, which portion of the funding is projected to come from (i) the Department of Justice, (ii) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (iii) Citizenship and Immigration Canada, (iv) the Canada Border Services Agency; (e) since its inception, how many employees have been assigned to the program each year; (f) how many prosecutions have been initiated since the program began; (g) how many files are currently under review; (h) how many cases have been referred to the program; (i) what criteria does the program use to evaluate cases; (j) what programs and measures are in place to educate the public about the program; (k) what programs and measures are in place to educate the respective departments involved about the program; and (l) how often are each of the responsible ministers briefed on the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 745--
Mr. Philip Toone:
From fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, what is the total amount of funding that the government had provided, each year, in the riding of Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine, by department or agency, initiative and amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 746--
Ms. Annick Papillon:
With regard to the estimated timeline and costs for the reconstruction of the Quebec City Armoury: (a) what was the estimated timeline for the preliminary work and the reconstruction of the Armoury when the federal government issued a call for tenders regarding the preparation of architectural designs on October 25, 2010; (b) what was the total estimated cost of the preliminary work and the reconstruction of the Armoury when the federal government issued a call for tenders regarding the preparation of architectural designs on October 25, 2010, broken down (i) by fiscal year when the expenditures were to be committed, (ii) by phase of the reconstruction project; (c) what is the most recent estimated timeline for the preliminary work and the reconstruction work; (d) based on the most recent timeline, what are all the phases of the reconstruction process; (e) which federal departments or agencies are responsible for overseeing and managing the preliminary work and reconstruction work; (f) which federal departments or agencies are responsible for awarding contracts for the preliminary work and reconstruction work; (g) which service contracts for the preliminary work of consultation, cleaning and preservation have already been awarded; (h) which service contracts for the reconstruction work have already been awarded; (i) what is the total cost of all service contracts awarded in relation to the preliminary work and reconstruction work, including consultation, planning, cleaning and preservation costs; and (j) what will be the total cost of the reconstruction of the Armoury based on the Department of National Defence’s most recent preliminary estimate, broken down (i) by fiscal year when the expenditures were to be committed, (ii) by phase of the reconstruction project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 748--
Ms. Annick Papillon:
What is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency of Québec from the 2006-2007 fiscal year to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative or project, for each department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 749--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
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): (a) which RCMP detachments have digital fingerprint scanners and which do not; and (b) how many scanners does the RCMP plan to add in each province and/or territory in the future, at what locations, and when?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 751--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to government announcements made by and associated with meetings or events attended by the following individuals in the following locations on or around April 27, 2012, related to the proposed Canada-European Union trade agreement, what were the travel and accommodation costs, including those of staff members or other government employees, associated with the announcements, meetings and events, and what were all other costs associated with the announcements, meetings and events for (i) the Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), in Edmundston, New Brunswick, (ii) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade in Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) the President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario in Huntsville, Ontario, (iv) the Minister of Labour in London, Ontario, (v) the Minister of Natural Resources in Toronto, Ontario, (vi) the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons in Waterloo, Ontario, (vii) the Minister of Canadian Heritage in Vancouver, British Colombia, (viii) the Minister of Health; (ix) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Cap-Pelé, New Brunswick, (x) the Minister of State (Finance) in Calgary, Alberta, (xi) the Hon. Rob Merrifield, P.C., M.P., in Spruce Grove, Alberta, (xii) the Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture) in Québec City, Québec, (xiii) Senator Pierre Claude Nolin in Montréal, Québec, (xiv) the Minister for Public Safety in St. Boniface, Manitoba (xv) the Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, (xvi) Mr. Randy Hoback, M.P., in Regina, Saskatchewan, (xvii) the Minister of National Revenue in New Annan, Prince Edward Island, (xviii) the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada in St. John’s, Newfoundland, (xix) the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway in Ottawa, Ontario, (xx) any of the persons named in (i) through (xix) in any other location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 752--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to government advertising: (a) what is the overall budget for the print advertising campaign which has appeared in newspapers or other print media outlets concerning Old Age Security, under the heading “Placing Old Age Security on a Sustainable Path”; (b) who did the creative work on these ads; (c) if the answer to (b) is an outside party or agency, who was the outside party or agency; (d) what was the cost of the creative work; (e) what media outlets did the ad appear in, and, for each, on which date or dates was the ad inserted; (f) what was the cost of each individual insertion; (g) who determined the colour scheme for the ads; and (h) what was the rationale for the colour scheme?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 753--
Mr. Craig Scott:
With respect to the Afghan Detainee Document Review (ADDR) submitted on April 15, 2011, by the Panel of Arbiters (PoA) under the June 15, 2010, Memorandum of Understanding signed by three party leaders in Parliament: (a)have the documents referred to in paragraph 30 ever been provided, unredacted, to any Canadian government law-enforcement investigators for purposes of tracing the detainees named in the documents in order to determine whether any suffered mistreatment after transfer to Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS), if not, why not; (b) has the government ever provided compensation to any person or family of any person transferred to Afghan authorities, or sought out a person or family with compensation as the purpose; (c) with regard to the public-domain research (regular reviews of credible media reporting, government reports and reports of international organizations) conducted by the PoA’s staff referenced in pararaph 36 of the ADDR, was this public domain research handed over to the government, if not, where is it located, and, whatever its location, will the government release any bibliographies generated by this research or any documents archived by the research that fall within the categories of “credible media reporting, government reports and reports of international organizations”; (d) with regard to the PoA’s review of documents redacted on the basis of national security confidentiality (“NSC” documents), national defence and international relations whereby the PoA reviewed between 1450 and 2300 pages of documents (paragraphs 52-54) while releasing 113 NSC documents (paragraph 56), will the government release those documents that were not yet ready for release with the ADDR because the Department of Justice had not yet had time to complete the technical process of preparing the documents for release after the PoA had finished its reviews and determinations (paragraphs 54 and 55), and how many PoA-reviewed documents remain unreleased because the technical process of preparing the documents remains incomplete; (e) with regard to the 15 documents for which the government had initially claimed solicitor-client privilege (paragraph 63 and page 1 of the ADDR annex called “Documents subject to Solicitor-Client Privilege Claims”) but later withdrew the claim, in each case, (i) what were the bases on which privilege was initially claimed, (ii) why did the government change its view; (f) with regard to the 117 documents for which the PoA upheld the government’s solicitor-client privilege claim (paragraphs 64 and 65; pages 2-7 of the ADDR annex called “Documents subject to Solicitor-Client Privilege Claims”), will the government waive the solicitor-client privilege to the limited extent of revealing the subject matter of each of the 117 documents; (g) in the ADDR annex called “Documents subject to Solicitor-Client Privilege Claims”, why are the large majority of documents described with the acronym PoA (presumably, Panel of Arbiters) while some are specifically indicated as being DFAIT (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) documents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 754--
Mr. Craig Scott:
With respect to the answer of the Minister of the Environment in the House of Commons on June 13, 2012, that “[a]t this point my officials have advised me that none of the triggers required to spark a federal intervention have been, or are likely to be, tripped” with respect to the application of 3191574 Nova Scotia Company, operating as The Highland Companies, for a 2,316 acre open-pit limestone quarry to be situated on lands they own in Melancthon Township, Dufferin County, Ontario: (a) what government units are the source of this advice and on what date or dates was this advice received; (b) does this advice concern (i) federal environmental law in force as of June 13, 2012, (ii) prospective federal environmental law as it will stand once changes in the Budget Implementation Act, Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, enter into force, or (iii) both (i) and (ii), (c) what is the significance of the Minister’s proviso “at this point,” and does the advice given “at this point” concern the planned quarry or only current use of the land by the owners of the land; (d) what are the reasons that current federal environmental law environmental assessment provisions are viewed as not being triggered; (e) will environmental assessment under federal environmental law as it will be changed by Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be triggered with respect to use of the land as a quarry, and, if not, why not; (f) what form did the advice received by Minister Kent take; (g) considering Minister Kent’s reference to the future with the word “likely”, will further advice be provided to the Minister in the future, and, if so, what will determine when and how this advice is given; (h) within any of the advice so far provided, what view was taken on each of the following as potential reasons for federal environmental assessment, (i) the fact that the area is the headwaters for five rivers, (ii) the fact that those rivers empty into the Great Lakes system, (iii) the fact that waters pumped out of the below-water-table quarry will be pumped back into the water table, with possible resultant contamination, (iv) the status of much of the land as amongst the most arable land in Canada, with corresponding relevance for national and global food security, (v) the fact that the area is the source of a high percentage of potatoes for the Toronto area and that loss of this source of potatoes will likely increase the distance which replacement potatoes have to travel, thus increasing transportation use with a knock-on impact on carbon emissions, (vi) the existence of trout in some or all of the rivers, (vii) the area as habitat for undomesticated animal and bird species, (viii) the impacts on humans living in or adjacent to the area; (i) in what ways will impending changes to environmental law affect the advice given as per the answers to (h)(i) through (h)(viii); (j) with respect to (h) and (i), what sources of information did the advisors to the Minister rely upon and did any of that information come from (i) proponents of the quarry, identifying the entities or persons, (ii) opponents of the quarry, identifying the entities or persons; (k) has the federal government consulted with the government of Ontario with respect to whether or not federal environmental law applies, and, if so, when did the consultations occur and what was the position taken by Ontario; (l) has the government received any factual or other data relevant to the lands and project in question from the government of Ontario, and, if so, what is the nature of this data; (m) has the government had any interaction with 3191574 Nova Scotia Company, operating as The Highland Companies, or any person or organization advocating or lobbying on its behalf and, if so, what was the subject matter and outcome of such interactions; (n) is there any foreign ownership of 3191574 Nova Scotia Company, operating as The Highland Companies, and, if so, are there any implications for Canadian foreign investment law of acquisition and use of the land for purposes of operating a quarry; (o) assuming that conversion of the land in question from arable food-producing land to quarry land will have impacts on interprovincial and/or international trade and commerce, does the government have jurisdiction to legislate in order to prevent or limit conversion of arable to non-arable uses; and (p) in the event that the loss of arable land to other uses is deemed to have an impact on national and global food security, does the government have any jurisdictional basis for the to legislate to preserve arable land?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 756--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to the government’s Program Activity Architecture: (a) identified by department, what is the name of each program activity and what was the total spending for each for fiscal years (i) 2008-2009, (ii) 2009-2010, (iii) 2010-2011; (b) identified by department, what is the planned spending for each program activity for fiscal years (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014; (c) identified by department, what are all the singular programs that form part of each program activity; (d) for each program identified in (c), what was the total spending for that program for fiscal years (i) 2008-2009, (ii) 2009-2010, (iii) 2010-2011; and (e) for each program identified in (c), what is the planned spending for fiscal years (i) 2011–2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 757--
Hon. John McCallum:
With respect to the legislative mandate for the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO): (a) how many legal opinions has the government drafted on the legislative mandate of the PBO and for each opinion (i) when was the opinion asked for, (ii) when was the opinion drafted, (iii) was the opinion produced by public servants or an outside consultant; and (b) how much has the government spent drafting these legal opinions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 759--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the backdrops used by the government for the announcements from February 2, 2011, to present, for each backdrop purchased, what was: (a) the date (i) the tender was issued for the backdrop, (ii) the contract was signed, (iii) the backdrop was delivered; (b) the cost of the backdrop; (c) the announcement for which the backdrop was used; (d) the department that paid for the backdrop; and (e) the date or dates the backdrop was used?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 760--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to ongoing litigation between the government and any other Canadian government (provincial or municipal): (a) what is the citation of each case; (b) what is the summary of each case; and (c) what is the total amount of money the government has spent to date on each case?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 761--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to cultural property: (a) what is the total number of (i) gifts of cultural property, (ii) charitable gifts of property other than Canadian cultural property, (iii) Crown gifts of property other than Canadian cultural property, received in each fiscal year since 2001-2002 inclusive, by each of Library and Archives Canada, including the former National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada; the National Gallery of Canada, distinguishing the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography; the Canadian Museum of Civilization, distinguishing as well the Canadian War Museum; the Canadian Museum of Nature; the National Museum of Science and Technology, distinguishing both the Canada Agriculture Museum and the Canadian Aviation Museum; the Canadian Museum for Human Rights; and (b) what was the total value of each gift?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 763--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With regard to the payments made to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his former chief of staff, Sandra Buckler, for passports and expenses incurred on October 1, 6 and 10, 2011: (a) what is the specific breakdown of the costs expensed; and (b) in relation to what travel or anticipated travel were the passport expenses incurred?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 765--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With respect to the three programs supported by the Global Peace and Security Fund (i.e., the Global Peace and Security Program, the Global Peace Operation Program and the Glyn Berry Program), for each of these programs: (a) what was the final budget for fiscal year 2011-2012; (b) what specific projects were approved in fiscal year 2011-2012; (c) what is the budget for 2012-2013; and (d) what projects have been approved so far for fiscal year 2012-2013
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 766--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With respect to the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force (START): (a) what was the final budget for fiscal year 2011-2012; (b) what specific projects were approved in fiscal year 2011-2012; (c) what is the budget for 2012-2013; and (d) what projects have been approved so far for fiscal year 2012-2013?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 768--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Correctional Services Canada’s (CSC) Prison Farm Program at the Westmorland, Frontenac, Pittsburgh, Rockwood, Riverbend, and Bowden Institutions: (a) for each of the institutions (i) what line items are taken into account when calculating yearly revenue, (ii) what amount did each of these items contribute to the total revenue, yearly for the past 6 years; (b) for each of the institutions, (i) what line items are taken into account when calculating the cost of goods sold, (ii) what amount did each of these items contribute to the total cost of goods sold, yearly for the past 6 years; (c) for each of the institutions, (i) what items are taken into account when determining yearly value of goods sold, for the last six years, (ii) what amount did each of these items contribute to the total earnings from goods sold; (d) what were the values of each of these components (in dollars) for each of the past six years; (e) what was the value of food produced at the institutions that was donated to charitable causes broken down by institution, for each of the past six years; (f) if resources were shared between the CORCAN Agribusiness and CSC at these three institutions, how were costs allocated for each of these three institutions; (g) if resources were shared between the CORCAN Agribusiness and CSC at these three institutions, which party indirectly subsidized the other and by what amount; (h) if internal transactions were made between the CORCAN Agribusiness and any other part of the federal government, how were the prices for these transactions determined; and (i) what was the recidivism rate of prisoners who had participated, for at least three months, in the prison farm program, compared to the general recidivism rate for prisoners released from the federal institutions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 770--
Mr. Craig Scott:
With respect to the government’s investigation of potential human rights abuses related to the transfer of Afghan detainees from the custody of Canadian Forces to the government of Afghanistan, especially the National Security Directorate (NDS): (a) do the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister automatically receive either copies of or briefings on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)’s annual human rights reports on Afghanistan; (b) if so, has this practice of automatically receiving copies or briefings always existed; (c) if not, when did this practice start; (d) once knowledge of human rights abuses within the NDS became known, did the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and/or the Minister of Defence order copies of or briefings on the DFAIT annual human rights report on Afghanistan; (e) if not, does the practice of not reading or being briefed on the DFAIT human rights report on Afghanistan continue to this day; (f) following the April 23, 2007, Globe and Mail article by Graeme Smith on transferred detainees as victims of mistreatment within NDS facilities, did the government seek to verify the alleged experiences of the people interviewed by Smith and, if so, (i) what precise measures were taken, (ii) by whom, (iii) for how long and until when did these measures last; (g) consistent with the book The Savage War by Murray Brewster (page 276), did lawyers representing the government while simultaneously representing military police involved in the Military Police Complaints Commission’s hearings on Afghan detainees “t[ake] their direction from senior levels inside the civil service”, and, if so, (i) did this include one or more officials within the Privy Council Office (PCO), (ii) is this normal practice, (iii) what are the guidelines for how Department of Justice lawyers receive direction from outside the Department of Justice, particularly from PCO officials; (h) in relation to Afghan detainee issues, have government lawyers ever received instructions, directions or representations from staff, at any level, within the Prime Minister’s Office; (i) did Amnesty International suggest to NATO and/or the government that one way to ensure no torture of detainees would occur would be to embed soldiers or military police in Afghan facilities and, if so, (i) was this option considered (ii) why was it not adopted if it was considered; (j) why did the government decide to approach the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) to start monitoring transferred detainees under the December 2005 arrangement, leading to the February 20, 2007 agreement with AIHRC; (k) did the government do an assessment of AIHRC’s capacity to engage in this role and, if so, what were the results of this assessment; (l) with respect to the testimony of David Mulroney before the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan that Canada could not find evidence of former Kandahar Governor Khalid having a detention facility in or next to his compound, exactly what efforts were undertaken to investigate this matter, (i) by what actors, (ii) using what methods, (iii) on how many occasions; (m) did the government of Canada ever receive information from the AIHRC conveying a belief that Khalid operated a private jail and, if so, did the AIHRC also convey a belief that mistreatment of prisoners took place there; (n) for what reasons was the government of Canada unable to verify whether such a jail existed; (o) when the head of the AIHRC, Canada’s partner in monitoring detainees, “estimated publicly... that approximately one-third of the prisoners handed over ended up being tortured” (Brewster, The Savage War, page 67), (i) what was the government’s response to this information, (ii) was this deemed a credible estimate and, if not, why not; (p) after the statement in (n) was made, was it the government’s policy that it was lawful to transfer detainees; (q) did any communications occur within the Canadian Forces or the government about the concerns expressed by military police official Major Kevin Rowcliffe about the torture of detainees and what actions did the government take in response to Major Rowcliffe’s testimony before the Military Police Complaints Commission; and (r) has either DFAIT or PCO ever conducted an analysis or assessment of the NDS and, if so, what was the subject-matter of the analysis or assessment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 771--
Mr. Craig Scott:
With respect to the recently published document Building Resilience against Terrorism: Canada’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy (“the Strategy”) and the testimony on June 2, 2012, of the Minister of Public Safety and two of his officials before the Public Safety Committee on the Strategy: (a) what was the process by which the Strategy was planned and generated, from date of conception (i.e. when it was decided to produce a strategy document) to the date of release, including (i) which unit, branch or agency within the Department of Public Safety took the lead, and what other units, branches or agencies of the Department were closely involved, (ii) were other departments consulted and, if so, which units, branches or agencies within those departments were involved; (b) did the planning process for the Strategy include conducting ‘lessons learned’ or similar reviews or studies of counter-terrorism policy and operations since September 11, 2001, including with respect to intelligence policy and operations in Afghanistan, and/or were reviews or studies that were done outside the Strategy’s own planning process drawn upon in formulating the Strategy, including with respect to Afghanistan; (c) with respect to studies and reviews mentioned in (b), (i) what are their names or titles, (ii) on which dates were they conducted, (ii) what were the authoring governmental units, branches or agencies responsible for the said studies and reviews; (d) have there been reviews or studies of lessons learned from the Afghanistan experience that will be used for future counter-terrorism policy, notably with respect to how counter-terrorist intelligence interacts with military operations and imperatives; (e) did the reviews and studies referred to in (d) include a review or a study of the lessons learned with respect to the interaction of CSIS operatives who were in theatre with Defence Intelligence, Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) and other intelligence operatives who were also working in theatre; (f) has the Security and Intelligence Review Committee conducted reviews and studies on the role of CSIS in Afghanistan including, but not limited to, reviews and studies relevant to CSIS relations to the National Directorate of Security concerning transfer and interrogation of detainees; (g) what was the nature, timing and process of each review or study identified in (f), and what are the details regarding the relevant documents or summaries; (h) has the government conducted a review to identify what can be learned concerning what the Strategy identifies as the challenge of “increasing interaction with non-traditional partners” (p. 17) as a result of the interactions of CSIS, Defence Intelligence and CSEC with Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS), and, if so, what are the lessons learned or conclusions of any such review; (i) with regard to the recommendations in the recent Concluding Observations of the UN Committee against Torture, will the government implement any aspects of Justice O’Connor’s Arar Inquiry report with respect to oversight of intelligence agencies, including RCMP intelligence, in addition to measures already taken, and (i) if so, which aspects, (ii) if not, why not; (j) given that on page 9 of the Strategy “environmentalism” is listed as one advocacy area that can generate “extremism” leading to terrorism, has the government concluded that any environmental group currently present in Canada is “extremist” in this sense; (k) does the mandate of the integrated national security enforcement team include the protection of the Canadian oil and gas industry and its employees from environmental “extremism” that turns into terrorism, as described in the Strategy; (l) in its planning process for the Strategy, did the government study how Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), and specifically its clause to repeal section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act, could affect the Strategy’s goal of establishing “stronger laws against ... hate propaganda” (p. 32), and, if so, what were the government’s conclusions; (m) is Bill C-30, An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts, an important part of Canada’s counter-terrorism strategy, and, if so, why was it not included in the Strategy; (n) is Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, an important part of Canada’s counter-terrorism strategy, and, if so, why was it not included in the Strategy; (o) will further legislation be put forward to implement the Strategy and, if so, on what matters and with what purposes; (p) with respect to the the Strategy’s statement concerning the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the importance that the group is “not allowed to rebuild in Canada in order to engage in terrorist activities,” (p.8) , (i) why does the Strategy refer to conduct that predated the end of the civil war in 2009 (i.e. the 2008 conduct of an LTTE fundraiser, for which he was convicted after the war in 2010) to illustrate the concern about the LTTE rebuilding, (ii) does the government possess information that suggests that the LTTE is in the process of rebuilding in Canada for purpose of terrorist activities; and (q) has Canada ever accepted communications intelligence from one of the traditional “Five Eyes” allies mentioned in Minister Toews’ testimony from June 5, 2012, where that intelligence consisted of communications that took place between persons both or all of whom were within Canada at the time the communications occurred?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 772--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to Library and Archives Canada: (a) what were the total accessions of (i) government records, (ii) private records in each year since 2000, inclusive, giving the total number of fonds accessioned, and the total amount of material, distinguishing textual, audio-visual, photographic, documentary art, electronic, and other records; and (b) how many unsolicited offers of donations of private records has Library and Archives Canada received in each year since 2000, and in particular (i) how many offers were accepted, (ii) what was the general nature or subject-matter of each such donation, (iii) what was the total amount of material, distinguishing textual, audio-visual, photographic, documentary art, electronic, and other records, (iv) how many such offers were declined, giving the reason for each?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 774--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to veterans’ affairs, in each year since 2006 inclusively: (a) how many requests for assistance were made to the Veterans Affairs Canada Funeral and Burial Program; and (b) of those, how many in each year were accepted, and how many were rejected?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 775--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what were the legal costs incurred by the government with respect to the case of Manuge v. Canada, decided as Supreme Court of Canada docket 33103, broken down by: (a) pre-trial costs; (b) costs related to proceedings at the Federal Court of Canada; (c) costs related to proceedings at the Federal Court of Appeal; (d) costs related to proceedings at the Supreme Court of Canada; and (e) other costs, specifying the nature of those costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 776--
Mr. Joe Comartin:
With regard to the CBC/Radio-Canada, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, and the Ministry of Heritage concerning the French CBEF station in Windsor, Ontario: (a) how many complaints have been received regarding the loss of the French analogue television transmitter; (b) how many people in Windsor, Ontario (i) watch CBC/Radio-Canada’s French television programming, (ii) listen to CBC/Radio-Canada’s French programming; (c) how much funding has been cut from the CBEF station, broken down by year, between 2006 and 2012; (d) who was consulted regarding the decision to cut CBEF’s funding; (e) was there a strategic review detailing why French radio and television programming received cuts provided to the CRTC or the Ministry of Heritage; (f) if the government has been lobbied on the issue of francophone broadcasting in Windsor, Ontario, what are the details of (i) lobby groups, (ii) the dates of the meetings, (iii) the locations of the meetings, (iv) the names of the people present at the meetings, including but not limited to political/federal public servants and registered lobbyists; and (g) what has CBC/Radio Canada done to ensure that cable/satellite providers are providing affordable services to Canadians who no longer have access to minority language programming?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 777--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) Small Craft Harbours Program: (a) what is the complete list of ports (in the province of Quebec) targeted for divestiture by DFO under the Divestiture Class Grant Program (SCH-DCGP) and the planned or desired timeframe for the divestiture; (b) has the Rimouski Wharf already been considered under the Program (SCH DCGP), and why; (c) what are the criteria used to determine which port facilities qualify under the Divestiture Class Grant Program; (d) generally speaking, what are the definitions of “core fishing harbour”, (ii) “non-core fishing harbour”, (iii) “recreational harbour”, (iv) “multi-purpose harbour”; and (e) under what law or regulations does DFO classify a port facility using these definitions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 780--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: (a) how many employment positions for locally-engaged staff at Canadian embassies and consulates have been terminated in fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, specifying which embassy or consulate; and (b) how many locally-engaged employees at Canadian embassies and consulates have had their employment terminated in fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, specifying which embassy or consulate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 783--
Mr. Wayne Marston:
With regard to intelligence-gathering policies and practices, and Canada’s past policy and practice of transferring Afghan detainees to the government of Afghanistan, especially the National Security Directorate (NDS): (a) was interest, by the Afghan authorities in an Afghan individual, one of the Canadian Forces’ (CF) criteria for detaining that person, and, if so, what was meant by “interest in the individual”; (b) did Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) officials, Department of Foreign Affairs and International (DFAIT) officials, or other non-Canadian Forces officials ever take part in, or provide information with respect to, Canadian Forces determinations as to whether the Afghan authorities had an “interest in the individual”; (c) if CF, with or without CSIS or DFAIT assistance, engaged in tactical questioning and collection of evidence related to a detainee, and no useful information was acquired, would such detainee still be subject to transfer to NDS and, if so, for what purposes; (d) did CF ever transfer someone to NDS without CF or CSIS having first engaged in its own questioning and collective of evidence, in order that NDS would be able to engage in the first questioning of the person; (e) when Canada received intelligence from NDS, (i) did it ask or require NDS to indicate whether that intelligence came from interrogation of any Afghans who had been transferred to NDS by Canada, (ii) did its intelligence services operate standard procedures for assessing whether such intelligence received from NDS was, or may have, been secured as a result of mistreatment, notably torture, and, if so, what consequences did such assessment have for use of the provided intelligence; (f) if Canada continues to receive intelligence from NDS, do its intelligence services operate standard procedures for assessing whether such intelligence received from NDS was or may have been secured as a result of mistreatment, notably torture, and, if so, what consequences do such assessments have as concerns the use of the provided intelligence; (g) since 2001, have NDS officials ever visited Canadian government officials in Canada, and, if so, when and with what government departments and departmental units or branches; (h) considering that the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) operated in Afghanistan, did Canada ever provide CSEC signals intelligence to NDS and, if so, does it continue to do so; and (i) was a review of CSIS’ activities ordered after it was revealed that CSIS officials had taken part in the interrogation of Afghan prisoners, and, if so, (i) who or what entity conducted this review, (ii) what were the results of this review?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 784--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With respect to the United Nations Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan: (a) when was the Minister of International Cooperation first informed of the corruption within the fund and what briefing notes were prepared for the Minister regarding the situation; (b) which additional Cabinet Ministers were informed of the corruption within the fund and what briefing notes were prepared for the additional Cabinet Ministers regarding the situation; (c) what steps did the government take upon hearing of the corruption within the fund; (d) what Canadian oversight measures were in place to ensure that Canada’s financial contribution to the fund was used in an accountable manner since 2002; and (e) what meetings have been held concerning the fund, and what was the date and location of those meetings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 785--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to government libraries: (a) since January 1, 2012, which departments or agencies have closed, or will be closing, their departmental or agency libraries; (b) what is the rationale for each closure; (c) what evaluations, studies, or assessments were conducted and used to make the decision to close; (d) what are the dates and file numbers of those evaluations, studies, or assessments; (e) what are the plans for the disposition of the holdings of the libraries; (f) what evaluations, studies, or assessments were conducted and used to make decisions concerning the disposition of holdings; and (g) what are the dates and file numbers of those evaluations, studies, or assessments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 786--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to federal real property, what is the name and file number of any report, study, or other documentation, prepared since January 1, 2006, concerning practices with regard to (i) the naming or re-naming federal government buildings, properties, facilities, structures, institutions, establishments, or ships, (ii) the naming or re-naming of any particular federal government buildings, properties, facilities, structures, institutions, establishments, or ships?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 787--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to government announcements, what were the: (a) travel and accommodation costs, including those of staff members or other government employees; and (b) other costs, associated with the following meetings or other events, held on or around June 4, 2012, concerning the “Plan for Responsible Resource Development,” namely those meetings or events held by (i) the President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario in Thunder Bay, Ontario, (ii) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) the Minister of Finance in Toronto, Ontario, (iv) the Minister of Industry in Montreal, Quebec, (v) the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, (vi) the Minister of State (Democratic Reform) in Edmonton, Alberta, (vii) the Minister of Public Works and Government Services in Calgary, Alberta, (viii) the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in Surrey, British Columbia, (ix) the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada in St. John's, Newfoundland, (x) any of the persons named in (i) through (ix) in any other location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 788--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to Non-Insured Health Benefits for First Nations and Inuit: (a) what drugs, dental care services, vision care services, medical supplies and equipment, mental health services and medical transportation benefits coverage were provided through the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program each year between 2006 and 2012 inclusively, broken down by (i) the specific drugs, procedures, medical supplies, equipment, mental health services, and transportation services covered each year, (ii) the specific drugs, procedures, medical supplies, equipment, mental health services, and transportation coverage provided within each province, territory, Inuit, and First Nation community; (b) how much was spent through the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program on drugs, dental care services, vision care services, medical supplies and equipment, mental health services and medical transportation services benefit coverage each year between 2006 and 2012 inclusively, broken down by (i) the specific drugs, dental care services, vision care services, medical supplies and equipment, mental health services and medical transportation services covered each year, (ii) the specific drugs, dental care services, vision care services, medical supplies and equipment, mental health services and medical transportation services coverage provided within each province, territory, Inuit, and First Nation community; (c) how many benefit claims were denied through the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program each year between 2006 and 2012 inclusively, broken down by (i) the specific drugs, dental care services, vision care services, medical supplies and equipment, mental health services and medical transportation services benefit claims denied, (ii) the province, territory, Inuit, and First Nation community; and (d) how many appeals of denied claims were made between 2006 and 2012 inclusively, broken down by (i) the specific drugs, dental care services, vision care services, medical supplies and equipment, mental health services and medical transportation services claim appeals filed, (ii) the level of appeal for each specific drug, dental care service, vision care service, medical supply and equipment, mental health service and medical transportation service claim appeal filed, (iii) the result of each appeal filed, (iv) province, territory, Inuit, and First Nation community?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 793--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With respect to the following personnel at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC), namely Mary Chaput, Associate Deputy Minister; James Gilbert, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration; Keith Hillier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery Branch; Heather Parry, Assistant Deputy Minister; and Peter Yendall, Director General of Communications, for the period April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2012: (a) what does VAC provide for each individual in terms of salary range; (b) how much did each of these individuals claim for (i) food, (ii) travel, (iii) hotels, (iv) hospitality, broken down by fiscal year for the period requested; (c) what were the itemized amounts and descriptions of each individual’s individual expenses as identified in the answers to (b); (d) how many trips were taken by each of these individuals in each fiscal year for the period requested, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) destination(s), (iii) purpose(s); (e) for each trip in (d), what expenses were claimed, broken down by (i) transportation, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) any and all hospitality; and (f) how many days in each fiscal year for the period requested did each of these individuals work in (i) VAC headquarters in Prince Edward Island, (ii) Ottawa?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 794--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to government announcements: (a) what were the travel and accommodation costs, including those of staff members or other government employees, and (b) other costs, associated with the following meetings or events, held on or around April 27, 2012, concerning the proposed Canada-European Union trade agreement, namely those meetings or events held by (i) the Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), in Edmundston, New Brunswick, (ii) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade in Halifax, Nova Scotia, (iii) the President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario in Huntsville, Ontario, (iv) the Minister of Labour in London, Ontario, (v) the Minister of Natural Resources in Toronto, Ontario, (vi) the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons in Waterloo, Ontario, (vii) the Minister of Canadian Heritage in Vancouver, British Colombia, (viii) the Minister of Health; (ix) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Cap-Pelé, New Brunswick, (x) the Minister of State (Finance) in Calgary, Alberta, (xi) the Hon. Rob Merrifield, P.C., M.P., in Spruce Grove, Alberta, (xii) the Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture) in Québec City, Québec, (xiii) Senator Pierre Claude Nolin in Montréal, Québec, (xiv) the Minister for Public Safety in St. Boniface, Manitoba (xv) the Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, (xvi) Mr. Randy Hoback, M.P., in Regina, Saskatchewan, (xvii) the Minister of National Revenue in New Annan, Prince Edward Island, (xviii) the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada in St. John’s, Newfoundland, (xix) the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway in Ottawa, Ontario, (xx) any of the persons named in (i) through (xix) in any other location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 796--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the closure of the Kingston Employment Insurance (EI) processing centre as a result of Service Canada's EI modernization plan: (a) what are the current EI processing centre hubs in Ontario; (b) what criteria determine whether a processing centre is an EI processing centre hub in Ontario; (c) what were the relevant factors in determining which Ontario EI processing centres were deemed EI processing centre hubs; (d) if the Kingston EI processing centre is not currently an EI processing centre hub, was it ever designated an EI processing hub, and if so, (i) when was it so designated, (ii) for what reasons was it so designated, (iii) on what date did it cease to be a hub, (iv) what are the reasons it is now no longer a hub; (e) what was the rationale for the decision to close the Kingston EI processing centre and to consolidate services to the Sudbury EI processing centre, and how do both locations compare in terms of the following Service Canada consolidation criteria, namely (i) existing EI staff and accommodations to minimize fit-up costs, (ii) close proximity to EI Call Centre to facilitate recruitment and career development opportunities, (iii) co-location with other business lines to decrease overhead costs associated with accommodation, operational and administrative services, (iv) bilingual capacity, (v) opportunities for lower cost leases, (vi) proximity to post secondary institutions to support recruitment, (vii) high speed telecommunications capacity to support EI modernization strategy, (vii) labour force availability; (f) what is the current staffing level at the Sudbury EI processing centre; (g) what is the anticipated staffing level at the Sudbury EI processing centre as a result of the centre becoming a consolidated site, broken down by (i) new hires, (ii) relocated/transferred existing Service Canada employees; (h) what are the anticipated costs of (i) training the new hires at the Sudbury EI processing centre, (ii) relocating/transferring existing service Canada employees to the Sudbury EI processing centre; (g) given that the Kingston EI processing centre currently handles all of the mail for Northern and Eastern Ontario, (i) where will these services be performed after the Kingston centre's closure, (ii) what is the anticipated cost to relocate this service; and (h) given that the Kingston processing centre processes interstate and overseas EI benefit claims, i) where will these services be performed after the Kingston centre's closure, (ii) what is the anticipated cost to relocate this service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 798--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what is the location of each (i) regional enforcement office, (ii) field enforcement office; (b) how many fisheries officers are based in each office; and (c) for each office, is the office location owned by government, or rented?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 799--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to government travel, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many times has a Minister or exempt staff member incurred a fine, fee or charge for damage or cleaning costs in respect of the use of a hotel room, including fines or charges related to smoking in a designated non-smoking room; and (b) what are the particulars of any such occurrence, including (i) date, (ii) amount of the fine, fee or charge, (iii) the name and location of the hotel, (iv) the name of the person who incurred the fine, fee or charge?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 800--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to land development, since January 1, 2002, has any department or agency of government, or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, applied any federal statute, regulation, or policy in respect of the Southlands development or proposed development in St. John’s, Newfoundland?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 802--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With respect to violations or contraventions of the Fish Inspection Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Foods and Drugs Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act: (a) what is the total number, broken down by each Act for each of the fiscal years from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012, of (i) indictable offence charges laid against an individual, (ii) summary conviction offence charges laid against an individual, (iii) indictable offence charges laid against a corporation, partnership or organization, (iv) summary conviction offence charges laid against a corporation, partnership or organization; (b) for the answer to each part of (a)(i) and (a)(ii), broken down by each Act for each of the fiscal years from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012, what is the total number, (i) found guilty of an indictable offence, (ii) found guilty of a summary conviction offence, (iii) found not guilty of an offence having established the exercise of due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence, (iv) of charges stayed, (v) of charges withdrawn; (c) for the answer to each part of (a)(iii) and (a)(iv), broken down by each Act for each of the fiscal years from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012, what is the total number, (i) found guilty of an indictable offence, (ii) found guilty of a summary conviction offence, (iii) found not guilty of an offence having established the exercise of due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence, (iv) of charges stayed, (v) of charges withdrawn; (d) for the answer to each part of (b)(i) and (b)(ii), broken down by each Act for each of the fiscal years from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012, what was (i) the amount of the fine for each guilty judgement, (ii) the imprisonment duration for each guilty judgement, (iii) the total amount of fines; (e) for the answer to each part of (c)(i) and (c)(ii), broken down by each Act, for each of the fiscal years from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012, what was (i) the amount of the fine for each guilty judgement, (ii) the imprisonment duration for each guilty judgement, (iii) the total amount of fines?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 803--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With respect to Employment Insurance benefits and the Employment Insurance Board of Referees (EIBR), broken down by each Employment Insurance economic region and by fiscal year between from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012: (a) how many Chairpersons of the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees (EIBR) have been appointed; (b) for the answer to part (a), for each of the appointed Chairpersons, what (i) are their names, (ii) is the region each is/was responsible for, (iii) is the date of the appointment, (iv) is the expiry date of the appointment, (v) are the number of appeal hearings presided over, (vi) is the total amount of remuneration paid to each; (c) how many members chosen from employers or representatives of employers have been appointed to the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees (EIBR); (d) how many members chosen from insured persons or representatives of insured persons have been appointed to the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees (EIBR); (e) what is the number of Employment Insurance benefit applications; (f) for the answer to part (c), how many Employment Insurance benefit decisions have been appealed to the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees (EIBR); and (g) for the answer to part (f), how many of the Employment Insurance benefit decisions initially denied were (i) overturned by the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees (EIBR), (ii) upheld by the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees (EIBR)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 804--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With respect to the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Act, broken down by fiscal year from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012: (a) how many decisions made by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada have been appealed for (i) Canada Pension Plan (CPP) benefits, (ii) Old Age Security (OAS) benefits; (b) for the answer to part (a)(i), how many of the CPP benefit decisions initially denied were (i) overturned, (ii) upheld; and (c) for the answer to part (a)(ii), how many of OAS benefit decisions initially denied were (i) overturned, (ii) upheld?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 805--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to all vehicle procurements by the government, broken down by fiscal year from 2005-2006 to 2011-2012 and by department, agency and government institution: (a) for every vehicle purchased, what is (i) the year, make and model description of each vehicle, (ii) the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of each vehicle, (iii) the final purchase cost of each vehicle, (iv) the contract number of each vehicle purchased, (v) which vehicles were dealer stock purchases, (vi) what is the dealership name and address from which the vehicle was purchased; (b) for every vehicle leased, what is (i) the make and model of each vehicle, (ii) the VIN of each vehicle, (iii) the dealership name and address from which the vehicle was leased, (iv) the final lease cost of each vehicle, (v) the contract number of each vehicle leased; (c) for every vehicle purchased for Ministers, Ministers of State, Deputy Ministers and Agency heads, what is (i) the make and model of each vehicle, (ii) the VIN of each vehicle, (iii) the final purchase cost of each vehicle, (iv) the contract number of each vehicle purchased, (v) which vehicles where dealer stock purchases, (vi) what is the dealership name and address from which the vehicle was purchased; (d) for every vehicle leased for Ministers, Ministers of State, Deputy Ministers and Agency heads, what is (i) the make and model of each vehicle, (ii) the VIN of each vehicle, (iii) the dealership name and address from which the vehicle was leased, (iv) the final lease cost of each vehicle, (v) the contract number of each vehicle leased; and (e) for the answer to each part of (a), (b), (c) and (d), (i) what is the cost of maintaining, repairing and operating each vehicle, (ii) what is the accumulated cost of fuel for each vehicle, (iii) what is the log book identification number, or other appropriate tool used to monitor vehicle use, for each vehicle?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 807--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to literacy programs: (a) what is the total amount of all estimated funding in all departments and agencies for literacy and essential skills, for fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012; (b) what are the federal programs in all departments and agencies that will be supported by literacy and essential skills funding in fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012; (c) what was the total amount of all funding in all departments and agencies for literacy and essential skills, for fiscal year 2005-2006; (d) what were the federal programs in all departments and agencies that were supported by literacy and essential skills funding, in fiscal year 2005-2006; (e) what is the breakdown by province for literacy and essential skills funding for fiscal year 2010-2011; (f) what was the breakdown by province for literacy and essential skills funding for fiscal year 2005-2006; (g) who were the funding recipients under the 2010-2011 Office of Literacy and Essential Skills Call for Concepts, broken down by province; and (h) who were the funding recipients under previous Office of Literacy and Essential Skills Calls for Concepts, broken down by year and by province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 809--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to content removal requests issued to Google Inc.: (a) how many such requests have been government issued, and what is (i) the date of the request, (ii) the originating department, agency, or other government body, (iii) the detailed reason for the request, (iv) the outcome or disposition of the request; and (b) is there a government-wide policy concerning requests for removal of content posted on the internet by third parties and, if so, what is the date and file number of the document in which the policy is set forth?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 810--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regard to proactive disclosure, from fiscal year 2004-2005 to the present fiscal year inclusively: (a) how many proactive disclosures have been corrected, amended, varied, or changed in any way after having already been disclosed in the case of (i) travel and hospitality expenses of Ministers or exempt staff, (ii) contracts, (iii) grants and contributions over $25,000; and (b) for each such instance, what were the particulars of each correction, amendment, variation, or change to the disclosure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 811--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regard to government travel, since January 1, 2006: (a) which ministers of the Crown have used rented limousines while on official business, within Canada or elsewhere; and (b) for each such use, what was (i) the date of the rental, (ii) the location of the rental, (iii) the nature of the official business, (iv) the cost of the rental?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 812--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: (a) how many departmental officers are serving in positions that are below their substantive level; (b) how many departmental officers are serving in positions that are above their substantive level; and (c) what are the additional salary costs to the Department of officers over-filling positions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 814--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the commemoration of the War of 1812: (a) what are all grants and contributions by any department or agency in connection with this event, specifying (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the date of the grant or contribution, (iii) the file number, (iv) the location of the recipient, (v) the nature of the activity or purpose associated with the grant or contribution; and (b) what are all contracts for the supply of goods or services in connection with this event, specifying (i) the vendor, (ii) the date of the contract, (iii) the dollar value, (iv) the file number, (v) the nature of the goods or services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 815--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the government-owned aircraft, since September 20, 2011, to present: (a) by fiscal quarter, what is the number of times government aircraft have been used by a minister, including the Prime Minister, or a minister's, including the Prime Minister's, exempt staff; and (b) what is every aircraft on which a minister, the Prime Minister, or a minister's or the Prime Minister's exempt staff have flown and, for each aircraft, what is (i) the tail number, make and model of the aircraft, (ii) the average hourly cost to operate the aircraft, (iii) the average hourly cost for food and beverages while the aircraft is in use, (iv) the department with tasking authority for the aircraft, (v) the title of the person with tasking authority for the aircraft, (vi) the number of times the aircraft has been used by a minister or the Prime Minister, (vii) the number of times the aircraft has been used by a member of a minister's or the Prime Minister's staff without the minister or the Prime Minister being on board the aircraft?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-411-659 Canadian Human Rights Commission8555-411-660 Federal Contaminated Sites ...8555-411-661 CF-188 Hornet aircraft8555-411-662 Government funding8555-411-663 Canada Border Services Agency8555-411-665 Economic Action Plan 20128555-411-666 Government employment levels8555-411-667 Temporary personnel services8555-411-668 Canada's Action Plan for th ...8555-411-669 Canadian International Deve ...8555-411-671 Local Initiative Fund