Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 2 of 2
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 768--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to travel paid for by government departments and agencies for Members of Parliament and Senators other than the minister, Minister of State, or Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the department: since 2010-2011 inclusively, (a) what was the total cost for each trip; (b) what was the cost for each trip, broken down by (i) transportation, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) gifts; (c) what was the reason for each trip; (d) what was the name of the Member of Parliament or Senator on each trip; (e) what was the itinerary for each trip; (f) was the Member accompanied by staff and, if so, what was the cost for the staff member or members, broken down by (i) transportation, (ii) accommodation, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) gifts; and (g) was a press release issued regarding the trip and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 769--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program announced on February 21, 2012: (a) how much funding has been disbursed; (b) which organizations have received funding; and (c) for each funding award, (i) how many participants have there been, (ii) how many participants are expected to take part over the course of the program, (iii) where is the program located, (iv) what is the estimated at-risk population in each city, town, or municipality concerned, (v) how much funding did the project receive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 770--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to the Treasury Board Secretariat: (a) does the Directive on Open Government, dated October 9, 2014, apply to tabular material prepared by departments, agencies, or crown corporations in response to written questions placed on the Order Paper by Members of the House of Commons or Senators; (b) if the response to (a) is negative, (i) why does the Directive not apply, (ii) who made this determination, (iii) when was this determination made; and (c) what are the titles and file numbers of any file, briefing note, dossier, or any other document, created or held by either the Treasury Board Secretariat or the Privy Council Office, relating to the application of the Directive on Open Government to government responses to written questions placed on the Order Paper by Members of the House of Commons or Senators?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 771--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to the rental or charter of private aircraft for the use of ministers and parliamentary secretaries since January 1, 2010: (a) what was the cost for each rental or charter; (b) what was the passenger manifest for each flight; (c) what was the purpose of the trip; (d) what was the itinerary for each trip; and (e) was a press release issued regarding the trip and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 772--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to Passport Canada: what was the total number of passport applications received in each year since 2006 inclusive, broken down by (i) in-person location, (ii) Service Canada receiving agent location, (iii) Canada Post receiving agent, and (iv) mail?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 774--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the statutes, regulations, policies and practices governing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans related to the issuing and administration of commercial fishing licences and fisheries resource allocation decisions: (a) what is the definition of (i) a commercial fishing licence, (ii) a commercial fishing permit; (b) what are the differences between a commercial fishing licence and a commercial fishing permit in terms of (i) the rights and responsibilities of the harvester holding either a licence or a permit respectively, (ii) the rights and responsibilities of the Minister in terms of resource allocation policy; (c) what is the definition of the “Last-in – First-out” (LIFO) policy; (d) how often has the LIFO policy been acted upon in determining allocations of annual quotas to either commercial fisheries licences or to permit holders that have experienced any year-over-year decline in the total allowable catch, broken down by (i) year, (ii) each such regulated harvesting category within any of the fisheries management areas of each fisheries stock area within the Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gulf, the Maritime and the Quebec regions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, further broken down in turn by (iii) species fished, (iv) individual fisheries management area within the species stock area within the past ten years, including the total quota levels for each such species and for each such fisheries management area within each stock area in each year; and (e) in each of the occurrences reported in answering (d), for each of the past ten years described, what was the total number of fish licence holders or permit holders who were directly affected by a reduction in quota on a year-over-year basis and were subject to the application and enactment of the LIFO policy, broken down by (i) species, (ii) individual fisheries management area within each fisheries stock area?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 778--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to the application of the Access to Information Act: (a) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all directives, orders, memoranda, reports, dossiers, or other documents that deal with the security concerns associated with the release of documents pursuant to Access to Information requests in digital formats or on digital media; and (b) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all directives, orders, memoranda, reports, dossiers, or other documents in which the Privy Council Office has set down or promulgated its policies concerning the provision or non-provision of documents released pursuant to Access to Information requests in digital formats or on digital media?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 779--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the ship Kathryn Spirit moored in Beauharnois, Quebec: (a) has Environment Canada or Transport Canada received a towing plan or an environmental certificate application from the ship’s owner and, if so, when was this plan received; (b) according to government information, is Reciclajes Ecologicos Maritimos the ship’s owner; (c) if the answer to (b) is no, who owns the ship, according to government information; (d) has the government conducted an analysis as to whether federal legislation allows the ship to be dismantled at its mooring location and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (e) has the government conducted an analysis of the risk of pollution from dismantling the ship and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (f) according to government information, does the ship contain toxic materials and, if so, what are they; (g) is there a port equipped to dismantle such a ship in Canada and, if so, where is it; (h) has the government analyzed whether federal legislation allows it to (i) seize the ship, (ii) tow the ship to a safe location and, if so, what are the details of this analysis; (i) does the government intend to (i) seize the ship, (ii) tow the ship to a safe location; and (j) has the government conducted an analysis on dismantling the ship in the Port of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield or in another port elsewhere in the country and, if so, has it estimated the cost of such an operation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 780--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to government expenditures on sporting event tickets: since January 1, 2013, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) ticket cost, (iv) identity of persons using the tickets, (v) nature of the sporting event, for all sporting event tickets purchased by any department, agency or crown corporation, or any person acting on behalf of a department, agency, or crown corporation, whether the event was held in Canada or outside Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 782--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to government advertising since September 1, 2012: (a) how much has been spent on billboards, advertising and other information campaigns, broken down by (i) date released, (ii) cost, (iii) topic, (iv) whether any analysis of the effectiveness of the advertising campaign was carried out and, if so, the details of that analysis, (v) medium, including publication or media outlet and type of media used, (vi) purpose, (vii) duration of campaign (including those that are ongoing), (viii) targeted audience, (ix) estimated audience; and (b) what are the details of all records of related correspondence regarding the aforementioned billboards, advertising and other information campaigns broken down by (i) relevant file numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 783--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk and moose: (a) since 2006, what government funding has been allocated or provided to research this disease, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) year; (b) what documents have been produced by government departments or agencies with regard to existing or future economic, health or environmental impacts of CWD including, for each document, the (i) date, (ii) authoring department or agency; (c) what documents have been produced by government departments or agencies regarding CWD generally including, for each document, the (i) date, (ii) authoring department or agency; (d) for each year since 2006, what measures have been taken by the government to mitigate the spread of CWD in Canada, including (i) the department or agency responsible for each measure, (ii) the date each measure was initiated, (iii) the duration of each measure, (iv) the objective of each measure, (v) whether those objectives were met; (e) what strategies and programs are currently in place or are being developed to deal with the potential spread of CWD to animals not currently susceptible to the disease, and to humans; (f) since 2006, what meetings or consultations have been conducted with provincial or territorial governments regarding CWD and what documents or decisions were produced from those meetings or consultations, including (i) the initiating and responsible federal department or agency, (ii) the date of the document that was produced or of the decision that was taken; (g) since 2006, what consultations, meetings or outreach has any federal department or agency had with any First Nations, Inuit or Metis government, organization or representative, including the (i) date of the interaction, (ii) names of participants, (iii) topics discussed, (iv) outcomes, (v) documents produced as a result of the interaction; (h) since 2006, what measures has the government put in place to monitor the spread of CWD, including (i) the department or agency initiating each measure, (ii) the date each measure was initiated, (iii) the duration of each measure; and (i) what measures are currently being considered by government departments or agencies as a result of, or in relation to, CWD?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 784--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act: how much have payments increased on average for (i) the 2,717 veterans entitled to increased earnings loss benefits, (ii) the 590 veterans entitled to increased Permanent Incapacity Allowances, (iii) the 202 veterans entitled to Exceptional Incapacity Allowances?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 786--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to the benefit provided by the government for veterans' funeral and burial expenses: (a) what is the maximum amount available through the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program for funeral services; (b) how does the amount in (a) compare to the allowable maximum established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces; (c) in order to qualify for the maximum amount available through the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program, at what must a veteran's estate be valued; (d) how does the amount in (c) compare to the means test established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces; (e) how many requests for assistance with burial costs were made in each of the fiscal years from 2006 to 2013; (f) how many of the requests in (e) were approved; (g) for each request in (e), broken down by fiscal year, what were the reasons for rejecting the request; and (h) what is the total number of requests that were rejected for each particular reason mentioned in (g)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 787--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to the Income Tax Act: during each of the last five taxation years, (a) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been reviewed, broken down by income tax filers who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (iii) in a location other than a Northern or Intermediate Zone; (b) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been audited, broken down by income tax filers who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (iii) in a location other than a Northern or Intermediate Zone; (c) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who have been (i) reviewed, (ii) audited, broken down by income tax filers who have claimed any northern residents deduction and those who have not claimed any northern residents deduction; (d) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, after having been (i) reviewed, (ii) audited, have had their claim for the northern residents deduction rejected, broken down by those income tax filers who have claimed the northern residents deduction in a Prescribed Northern Zone and those who have claimed the northern residents deduction in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone; (e) what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, in respect of the northern residents deduction, have been asked to document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city, broken down by those who live (i) in a Prescribed Northern Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction, (ii) in a Prescribed Intermediate Zone for the purposes of the northern residents deduction; (f) of the tax filers enumerated in (e), what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory who, in respect of the northern residents deduction, informed the Canada Revenue Agency that they could not document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city; and (g) of the tax filers enumerated in (e), what is the number and percentage of the income tax returns of income tax filers in each province or territory whose claim of the northern residents deduction has been rejected because they could not document the cost of the lowest return airfare available at the time of the trip between the airport closest to their residence and the nearest designated city?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 788--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to the administration of the Income Tax Act: (a) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the cost-effectiveness of reviewing or auditing income tax filers who claim the northern residents deduction; (b) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (a); (c) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the administrative burden faced by income tax filers who claim the northern residents deduction; (d) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (c); (e) what are the titles, dates, and file-numbers of any studies, assessments, or evaluations that have been conducted or are being conducted concerning the administrative burden faced by the Canada Revenue Agency in administering the northern residents deduction; and (f) what are the results of the studies, assessments, or evaluations referred to in (e)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 789--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to Public Private Partnerships involving Infrastructure Canada or PPP Canada: since January 1, 2006, for each such project, what are (a) the details of the project; (b) the time taken to design the bidding process; (c) the length of the bidding process from the initial expression of interest to the close; and (d) the cost to proponents of preparing a bid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 790--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs: how many clients were served each year from 2010 to 2014 inclusively at each Veterans Affairs office location, including the nine offices that have recently closed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 793--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to government spending in the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing: what was the total amount spent, from fiscal year 2010-2011 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the funds were received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program through which the funding was allocated, (iv) the department responsible, (v) the designated recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 794--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to licenses and permits issued by government departments, related to any maritime activity for potential use anywhere within, or in the waters of, the Atlantic provinces: (a) for each license or permit issued since 2009, (i) on what date was each license or permit issued, (ii) who were the owners or operators, (iii) under what conditions concerning the use, retention, or renewal of the license or permit, was it issued; (b) for each vessel whose license was suspended, rejected, or for which a renewal was denied, (i) on what date was the license suspended, rejected, or the renewal denied, (ii) for what reasons, (iii) by whose authority; (c) what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and all entities, departments, companies, contractors, or individuals, relating to the suspension, rejection or denial of license renewal, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) date, (iv) purpose, (v) origin, (vi) intended destination, (vii) other officials copied or involved; (d) what are the specific rules for the retention or renewal of any such license or permits; (e) what are all rules, files, and correspondence related to observer and dockside monitoring of these license-holders and users, broken down by (i) all relevant file numbers, (ii) entities, companies, contractors, or individuals, (iii) minister or department, (iv) correspondence or file type, (v) date, (vi) purpose, (vii) origin, (viii) intended destination, (ix) other officials copied or involved, (x) military base, asset, or facility, (xi) type of activity or contract; (f) what differences exist in the conditions for licenses or permits among different regions, zones, or provinces; and (g) what are the rules governing the keeping, as opposed to the releasing, of fish caught on boats used for recreational or touristic purposes, broken down by (i) province, (ii) number of applicable licensees or permits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 796--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces Task Force Libeccio in Operation Mobile: what were the (a) full and incremental costs from March 2011 to October 2011, broken down by month; (b) full and incremental costs for the (i) CF-18, (ii) CC-150, (iii) CC-130, (iv) CC-177, (v) CP-140; (c) total flying hours for the (i) CF-18, (ii) CC-150, (iii) CC-130, (iv) CC-177, (v) CP-140; (d) full and incremental costs of all base support arrangements (e.g. accommodations, meals, amenities, infrastructure, utilities) including any in-kind support received; (e) full and incremental costs of all deployment, supply, and re-deployment flights, including Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and charter aircraft; (f) ordnance ammunition used and its full and incremental costs; (g) full and incremental costs related to fuel delivered by RCAF tankers; (h) full and incremental costs of repair and overhaul; (i) full and incremental costs of any special pay or allowances for deployed personnel; (j) full and incremental costs associated with Home Leave Travel Assistance; (k) full and incremental costs associated with Class C Reserves deployed on operations; and (l) full and incremental costs associated with Class B Reserves employed as backfill in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 797--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces Operation IMPACT: what are the estimated (for the entire six-month operation) and actual (to-date) (a) full and incremental costs for the mission, broken down by month; (b) full and incremental costs for the (i) CC-130J, (ii) CC-177, (iii) CF-188, (iv) CP-140, (v) CC-150T; (c) total flying hours for the (i) CC-130J, (ii) CC-177, (iii) CF-188, (iv) CP-140, (v) CC-150T; (d) full and incremental costs of all base support arrangements (e.g. accommodations, meals, amenities, infrastructure, utilities) including any in-kind support received; (e) full and incremental costs of all deployment, supply, and re-deployment flights, including Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and charter aircraft; (f) ordnance ammunition (i) used, (ii) to be used, and its full and incremental costs; (g) full and incremental costs related to fuel delivered by RCAF tankers; (h) full and incremental costs of repair and overhaul; (i) full and incremental costs of any special pay or allowances for deployed personnel; (j) full and incremental costs associated with Home Leave Travel Assistance; (k) full and incremental costs associated with Class C Reserves deployed on operations; and (l) full and incremental costs associated with Class B Reserves employed as backfill in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 798--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) for the data collected in the Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS), for all the Department’s various program components, what were the processing times for grant and contribution applications between the time the program received the application and the time the Department made a funding decision, broken down by program component and quarter, for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively; and (b) for the Department’s executive committee responsible for reviewing the data on processing times collected in the GCIMS, (i) who are the members of the executive committee, (ii) how often does it meet, (iii) what is its operating budget, (iv) what were its recommendations to the Minister’s office, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (v) what were its recommendations to the deputy ministers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (vi) what were its recommendations to the assistant deputy ministers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (vii) what were its recommendations to directors general, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively, (viii) what were its recommendations to program managers, broken down by quarter for fiscal years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 inclusively?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 799--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the government’s Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Summit (the Summit) held in Toronto, May 28-30, 2014: (a) who within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development was responsible for the organization of the Summit; (b) what was the initial budget of the event, (i) did the Summit go over budget, (ii) if so, what were the cost overruns, (iii) were there unforeseen expenses; (c) what was the total cost of the Summit; (d) what was the total cost for the venue rental (Fairmont Royal York); (e) how many bedrooms in the Fairmont Royal York were paid for by the government and at what cost; (f) how many names were on the final guest list and what were the names; (g) how many government officials and employees attended the Summit and what are their names; (h) how many guests who are not employees of the government had their stay at the Fairmont Royal York paid for by the government and what are their names; (i) did the government pay for the travel expenses of international visitors; (j) how was the Fairmont Royal York chosen as a venue for the Summit, (i) on what date was the hotel first contacted with regard to the Summit, (ii) on what date was the contract with the hotel signed, (iii) did the Summit organizers contact venues other than the Fairmont Royal York and, if so, how many; (k) what was the total cost for security; (l) what was the total cost of meals and hospitality; and (m) was the Summit paid for by funds dedicated to the Muskoka Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 804--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Mount Polley mine spill: (a) has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) or Environment Canada filed charges regarding the spill, (i) if so, what are the details of the charges, (ii) if not, why not; (b) what role are DFO and Environment Canada playing in the ongoing investigation being led by British Columbia conservation officers; (c) are DFO and Environment Canada reviewing the rehabilitation plan developed by Imperial Metals Corporation, (i) if so, what are the findings of any such review, (ii) if not, why not; (d) has the government obtained the approval of the Secwepemc people for the investigation process or the review of the rehabilitation plan; (e) has the government studied the impact of the waste that remains in the Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake Watershed; (f) during and following the rehabilitation process, how will DFO and Environment Canada ensure that there are no ongoing violations of the Fisheries Act; (g) how is the government monitoring and enforcing compliance with best practice standards by Imperial Metals Corporation at its other mine sites; (h) how will the government ensure that there are additional layers of control to prevent loopholes in regulatory oversight and enforcement by the province; (i) will the government be examining any proposals concerning (i) repairs to the tailings storage facility, (ii) the resumption of operations at the mine; (j) how will the government ensure that the interests of the affected First Nations are addressed prior to any resumption of operation; (k) what steps will the government take to ensure that First Nation rights are addressed; and (l) what are the internal tracking numbers of all documents, communications or briefing notes regarding the Mount Polley spill for senior departmental officials at the Regional Director General level and above, at both DFO and Environment Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 805--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation (ECBC): for each year from 2005 to 2014 inclusively, (a) how much did the ECBC spend on infrastructure; and (b) what were all the projects of the ECBC, including but not limited to details such as the project’s name, purpose, and cost?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 806--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to federal government employees in Nova Scotia: for each year from 2005 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by department, how many government employees worked in (i) Cape Breton Regional Municipality, (ii) Victoria County, (iii) Inverness County, (iv) Richmond County?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 807--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario), how much government funding has been approved and distributed to each of the 37 census divisions by year since 2009?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 808--
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé:
With respect to the Canada Job Grant: (a) how much is each province and territory receiving in federal transfers under the Canada Job Fund for the current fiscal year, and for each subsequent fiscal year until the Fund is fully phased-in; (b) how much did each province and territory receive in federal transfers under the Labour Market Agreements in 2013-2014; (c) how much is, or is projected to be, the federal portion of the Canada Job Grant, year-to-date and for each of the coming fiscal years until the program is fully phased-in; (d) is the federal contribution to the Canada Job Grant paid out of the 40 % funds earmarked for employer-driven training under the Canada Job Fund; (e) if the federal portion of the Canada Job Grant is not paid out of the Canada Job Fund, from which program envelope is the contribution drawn; (f) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has the government actually spent on the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (g) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has each province and territory contributed to the Canada Job Grant from the Canada Job Fund; (h) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how much has been the employer contribution to the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (i) how much is the employer contribution projected to be for the Canada Job Grant for each of the coming fiscal years, until the program is fully phased-in; (j) how many businesses are projected to be eligible to provide “in-kind contribution” as their share of the Canada Job Grant when the program is fully-phased in; (k) what are eligible contributions “in-kind” for an employer’s participation in the Canada Job Grant; (l) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, how many Canadians have been trained with the help of the Canada Job Grant, broken down by province and territory; (m) how many Canadians will be trained with help of the Canada Job Grant for each of the fiscal years until it is fully phased-in; and (n) on a year-to-date basis for fiscal year 2014-2015, for which occupations have Canadians been trained with the help of the Canada Job Grant (using the National Occupational Classification system)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 811--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to government records: what information, asset management systems, correspondence tracking systems, telecommunications logs, vehicle logs, and all other forms of records are (a) kept, broken down by (i) department, (ii) record type, (iii) duration of preservation, (iv) frequency of update, (v) date of oldest currently preserved record, (vi) method of disposal, (vii) file numbering or similar record access system, (viii) list of employees (by title), contractors or other individuals with access to the records, (ix) method of keeping track of access requests to the records; and (b) not kept, including the details pertaining to what was not kept and why?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 812--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the changes announced in October 2014 to the Caregiver Program (the Program), formerly known as the Live-In Caregiver Program: (a) what individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments did the government consult as part of the process of developing the changes; (b) when did each consultation in (a) occur; (c) how did each consultation in (a) occur; (d) who in the government carried out each consultation in (a); (e) for past or current participants in the Program, (i) what opportunities existed to participate in consultations, (ii) how did the government make them aware of these opportunities, (iii) when did the government make them aware of these opportunities; (f) for other individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments, (i) how did the government make them aware of the opportunity to participate in consultations, (ii) when did the government make them aware of the opportunity; (g) what results of the consultations in (a) were presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (h) how were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (i) when were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (j) according to what criteria were the inputs that were received through consultations in (a) evaluated by the government; (k) what studies, reports, surveys, or other documents were consulted by the government; (l) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for Children Pathway; (m) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for People with High Medical Needs Pathway; (n) what was the number of principal applicants for permanent residence through the Program for each of the last ten years; (o) do the caps in (l) and (m) refer only to the number of new applications that the government will accept each year, or do they refer to the total number of applications that will be processed each year; (p) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents are currently in Canada as part of the Program; (q) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents have been in Canada as part of the Program for each of the last ten years; (r) how many temporary residents does the government expect to be in Canada as part of the Program for each of the next ten years; (s) what studies has the government carried out or consulted to determine whether the number of temporary residents in Canada as part of the Program is likely to change in the coming years; (t) what are the conclusions of the studies in (s); (u) for each of the last ten years, not including spouses and dependents, how many applications for permanent residence under the Program have been (i) submitted, (ii) accepted, (iii) denied; (v) if the number of principal applicants for permanent residence exceeds the cap of 2750 in either category in a given year, how will the government determine which applications to consider; (w) who will make the determination in (v); (x) based on what factors will the determination in (v) be made; (y) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program are currently being processed, not including spouses and dependents; (z) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program, not including spouses and dependents, does the government intend to process for each of the next five years; (aa) how will the government reduce the backlog of permanent residence applications under the program; (bb) by what date does the government intend to reduce the backlog in (aa); (cc) how many applications must be processed before the government will consider the backlog in (aa) to be reduced; (dd) when will the six-month limit on processing times for applications under the Program take effect; (ee) what impact will the six-month limit in (dd) have on applications underway at the time the limit takes effect; (ff) what measures will be implemented to ensure that applications for permanent residence will be processed within six months; (gg) what recourse will be available to applicants whose applications are not processed within six months; (hh) how will applications that remain in process after six months be dealt with by the government; (ii) will the six-month limit apply regardless of (i) the number of dependents, (ii) the country of origin of the principal applicants, their spouse, or their dependents; (jj) what measures are being introduced to give recourse to temporary residents in Canada under the Program who feel that they are being exploited or treated inappropriately by their employers, whether or not the caregiver lives with the employer; (kk) what changes have been made or will be made to the criteria used to evaluate applications for permanent residence under the Program; (ll) what directives have been or will be issued to visa officers; (mm) when do the directives in (ll) take effect; and (nn) how will applicants with applications currently underway be affected by the changes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 813--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children of Canadian residents: (a) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of Canadian citizens; (b) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (a), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (c) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of non-citizen permanent residents of Canada, excluding the Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP); (d) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (c), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (e) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children under the LCP; (f) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (e), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (g) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a); (h) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (i) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (a) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (j) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c); (k) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (l) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (c) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (m) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e); (n) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (o) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (e) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (p) has the government set processing times it considers acceptable for applications by applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children (i) of Canadian citizens, (ii) of non-citizen permanent residents, (iii) under the live-in caregiver program; (q) how were the acceptable processing times in (p) determined; (r) who determined the acceptable processing times in (p); (s) what variance, if any, exists for acceptable processing times in (p) based on (i) source country, (ii) age of applicant, (iii) visa office, (iv) other factors; (t) what changes, if any, have been made to the acceptable processing times in (p) over the last ten years, and what accounts for these changes; (u) if no acceptable processing times have been set, why have they not been set; (v) what evaluations of processing times has the government undertaken; (w) what were the results of the evaluations in (v); (x) if no evaluations of processing times have been undertaken, why has this not been done; (y) broken down by year, for each of the last ten years, what operational bulletins, changes to operational manuals, or other directives, published or unpublished, formal or informal, written or oral, have been issued by CIC to visa officers regarding applications by individuals seeking permanent residence as dependents of residents of Canada; (z) for each of the directives in (y), (i) how was the directive issued, (ii) by whom was it issued, (iii) what was the objective of the directive, (iv) how were its effects evaluated, (v) is it still in force; and (aa) for each directive in (y) no longer in force, (i) why was it terminated, (ii) who made the decision to terminate it, (iii) how was the decision to terminate it communicated to visa officers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 814--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to the government’s implementation of motion M-456, a Pan-Canadian Strategy for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: (a) what steps has the government taken or do they plan on taking to implement this strategy; (b) what are the needs identified by the government that this strategy could address; (c) what information or data has been provided or solicited from Statistics Canada or the Canadian Institute for Health of Information regarding patient needs for palliative and end-of-life care; (d) what standards and best practices have been identified for this strategy; (e) what stakeholders and medical experts have been identified as collaborators in developing this strategy, and which of them have been approached; (f) which provinces and territories have been approached to discuss the establishment of this strategy; (g) what steps has the government taken to implement this strategy for the jurisdictions where it has a direct responsibility for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, services to First Nations on reserve, the military, and prisoners; and (h) what palliative and end-of-life care programs are currently in place where the government has a direct responsibility for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, services to First Nations on reserve, the military, and prisoners?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 816--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance through Enhanced Exchange of Information under the Convention Between the United States of America and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (the Agreement), the government’s Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament (the Policy), and the statement of Peter Van Loan, Government House Leader, in the House on Monday, April 28, 2014, that “in this case, the fact is that the government, the cabinet, actually did grant such an exemption to the tabling policy. As such, the very words of the policy, the requirements of the policy, have been followed. The processes for obtaining the exemption were obtained. As a result, the requirement that it be tabled in the House 21 days in advance of the legislation being introduced is not necessary and the policy is fully complied with” (the Statement): (a) was an exemption to the government’s Policy granted with respect to the Agreement; (b) what is the difference between an “exemption” and an “exception” in terms of the Policy; (c) if the word “exception” is substituted for “exemption” is the Statement accurate; (d) on what basis was the Statement made; (e) how was the Government House Leader informed of the exemption or exception being granted to the Policy; (f) what documents or memos were created regarding this exemption or exception and what are their access or control numbers; (g) who was involved in this decision to grant an exemption or exception and at what stage were they involved; (h) what was the process, step-by-step, by which this Agreement was granted an exemption or exception; (i) who reviewed the decision to grant an exemption or exception, (i) when, (ii) why, (iii) how; (j) does the Policy apply to the Agreement, and how; (k) between what departments does correspondence exist regarding the tabling of the Agreement under the Policy and what are the file numbers for these documents; (l) on what date was the Agreement concluded; (m) on what date was the Agreement tabled in Parliament; (n) on what date was the Agreement ratified; (o) when was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement; (p) how was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement; (q) when was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement; (r) how was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement; (s) when and by what means is the House usually informed that an exception has been granted to the Policy; (t) in the absence of the point of order prompting the Government House Leader's response, how and when would the House have been informed of the exemption; (u) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exceptions being granted to the Policy; (v) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exceptions have been granted; (w) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exemptions being granted to the Policy; (x) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exemptions have been granted; (y) what does “urgent” mean in the context of the Policy; (z) how was the ratification of the Agreement determined to be urgent; (aa) who made the determination in (z), (i) how, (ii) on the basis of what information, (iii) with what authority, (iv) under what criteria; (bb) how was the decision in (z) reviewed, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) when, (iv) by what criteria; (cc) who are or were the lead ministers with respect to the Agreement in terms of the Policy and how was this determined; (dd) when and how did the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the lead ministers seek approval from the Prime Minister for an exemption to the treaty tabling process; (ee) when was the approval in (dd) granted and how; (ff) what correspondence is available – with file and control number--to corroborate the information provided in response to (dd) and (ee); (gg) was a “joint-letter that clearly articulates the rationale to proceed with the ratification, without tabling in the House of Commons” created; (hh) with respect to the letter in (gg), (i) who created this letter, (ii) when is it dated, (iii) how can it be obtained, (iv) who has access to it, (v) to whom is it addressed; (ii) was the letter drafted in consultation with the Treaty Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the relevant Secretariat in the Privy Council Office; (jj) what documentation exists – with file or control number for each document--to corroborate the information provided in response to (ii); (kk) who is responsible for retention and access of such joint letters; (ll) with respect to the Agreement, were the responsible ministers and the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware early on of the need to request an exemption to the treaty process prior to obtaining Cabinet authority to sign a treaty; (mm) how is “early on” defined for purposes of the Policy; (nn) how is “aware” defined for purposes of this provision in the Policy; (oo) was a request made in a Memorandum to Cabinet, seeking policy approval for the Agreement; (pp) what Memorandums to Cabinet exist relative to this agreement, (i) what are their dates, (ii) are they subject to privilege, (iii) who made them, (iv) what are their record or control numbers; (qq) which document in (pp) can be said to “clearly articulate the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process”; (rr) what is the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process with respect to the Agreement; (ss) who determines the rationale per the Policy; (tt) what is an acceptable rationale per the Policy; (uu) how is rationale defined in terms of the Policy; (vv) is there a minimal level of sufficiency for a rationale per the Policy and if so what is it; (ww) when was the exception granted; (xx) did the Minister of Foreign Affairs “inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification” per the Policy; (yy) when did the actions in (xx) occur and how; (zz) in 2014, how many exemptions or exceptions were granted under the Policy before the Agreement; (aaa) in 2014, was the Agreement’s rationale for exception unique; (bbb) in 2014, was the Agreement the only item determined to be urgent in terms of the Policy; (ccc) is the Government House Leader always informed of exceptions and exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; (ddd) is the House always informed of exceptions or exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; (eee) how early could the Agreement have been tabled in Parliament; (fff) how was the date in (eee) determined; (ggg) if the Agreement could have been tabled earlier in Parliament than the date in (o), (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis; and (hhh) if the Statement could have been made sooner in the House than Monday, April 28, 2014, (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 817--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to Statistics Canada: (a) have studies been done on how to use alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (b) what alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, were considered prior to 2011 to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (c) what alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, were considered from 2011 to the present to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (d) prior to 2011, which foreign jurisdictions were consulted in order to assess alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (e) from 2011 to the present, which foreign jurisdictions were consulted in order to assess alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006; (f) what studies, reports or assessments have been prepared by Statistics Canada regarding alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (g) what briefing documents have been prepared for ministers and their staff regarding alternative sources of data and methods of data collection, outside of surveys, to replace the information gathered by the mandatory long-form census in 1971, and every five years from 1981 to 2006, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (h) before 2011, did Statistics Canada consider the possibility of establishing connections between existing databases in different Canadian jurisdictions containing the personal information of Canadians, with the use of any form of primary key; and (i) from 2011 to the present, did Statistics Canada consider the possibility of establishing connections between existing databases in different Canadian jurisdictions containing the personal information of Canadians, with the use of any form of primary key?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 818--
Ms. Peggy Nash:
With regard to government funding: for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present, (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Parkdale—High Park, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 820--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement of $5.8 billion in new infrastructure investments on November 24, 2014, in London, Ontario, and each of the commitments detailed in the accompanying backgrounder: (a) what department and program does each commitment fall under; (b) how much will be spent on each commitment in each of the next five fiscal years; (c) were these funds in the fiscal framework in Budget 2014; (d) do any of these commitments constitute an increase in planned spending and, if so, (i) which, (ii) by how much; (e) on each of these programs for capital and infrastructure investments in each fiscal year since 2004-2005, what was (i) allocated, (ii) spent, (iii) lapsed; and (f) was the expenditure of these funds already accounted for in the economic forecasts used by the Finance Department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 821--
Ms. Laurin Liu:
With regard to government funding for the aerospace industry since 2010: how much has been invested in the form of loans or research and development tax credits, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province and territory, (iii) federal program, (iv) funding type (tax credit, repayable loan, non-repayable loan), (v) individual company?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 826--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the Prime Minister's trips to Northern Canada in or about August 2006, August 2007, August 2008, August 2009, August 2010, August 2011, August 2012, and August 2013: what are the details concerning the costs of these trips, including those costs of federal personnel already on the ground in Northern Canada tasked with support, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) department or agency, (iv) purpose or nature of the expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 827--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to Veterans Affairs delegations to Cyprus in March 2014, to Normandy in June 2014, and to Italy in November 2014: (a) for each delegation, what was the (i) total cost to each department which incurred expenditures related to the delegation, (ii) total cost for accommodation, (iii) total cost for travel, (iv) total cost for gifts, (v) total cost for meals and incidentals, (iv) complete list of delegation members, (vii) complete itinerary, (viii) reason for each delegation; (b) for each member of the delegation, what was the (i) total cost to each department which incurred expenditures related to the delegation, (ii) total cost for accommodation, (iii) total cost for travel, (iv) total cost for gifts, (v) total cost for meals and incidentals, (vi) reason for inclusion on the delegation; (c) for each contract for accommodations, was the contract competitively or non-competitively sourced and, if non-competitively, what was the rationale for non-competitive sourcing; and (d) for each delegation, (i) when was the itinerary tentatively established, (ii) when was the itinerary finalized, (iii) when was the Minister of Veterans Affairs own travel booked, (iv) if there were any changes to the booking referred to in (iii), what were those changes and when were they made?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 828--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With respect to Health Canada’s marketing campaign concerning marijuana and prescription drugs, launched on or about October 20, 2014: (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted leading up to this decision; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (c) what are the dates, times, and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted; (d) how much funding has been allocated to the deployment of this proposal for fiscal year 2014-2015; (e) what are the next steps in this marketing campaign; (f) how is the effectiveness, reach, and impact of this campaign measured; and (g) what other methods is the Department or government considering to make Canadians more aware of the real dangers of drug abuse?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 830--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to government advertising: what was (a) the total amount spent on radio or television advertisements; and (b) the total number of placements in each medium, broken down by (i) subject matter of the advertisement and title of the advertising campaign, (ii) broadcast outlet on which the advertisements were placed, (iii) identification number, Media Authorization Number, or ADV number, (iv) name, (v) time-period when the advertisement was broadcast, namely, from September 5, 2014, to October 11, 2014, from October 12, 2014, to November 17, 2014, and on or after November 18, 2014?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 831--
Ms. Laurin Liu :
With respect to the Canada Accelerator and Incubator Program launched in September 2013: (a) how much money was budgeted for the program, broken down by year; (b) how many applications have been received, broken down by province and territory; (c) how much money will be allocated, broken down by province and territory; (d) which groups have received funding; and (e) which groups have received a pledge of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 838--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to the access to information system: broken down by government department, institution and agency, for each year from 2004 to 2014, (a) what is the budget for managing access to information requests; (b) how much was spent on the access to information system; (c) how much was spent on full-time equivalent employees; (d) how much was spent on non-full-time equivalent employees, such as consultants and temporary hiring services, to carry out access to information activities; (e) how much did these non-full-time equivalent employees cost per hour; (f) what were these non-full-time equivalent employees hired to do; and (g) what are the security clearances of these non-full time equivalent employees?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 840--
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:
With regard to the government’s announcement that it will transfer to the National Capital Commission up to 60 acres of land belonging to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for the construction of a hospital and teaching facilities: (a) was this decision preceded by public and private consultations; (b) what was the consultation process and what were the methods involved; (c) when was the consultation process launched; and (d) what organizations were consulted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 841--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to public revenue: for each government organization, including a department, agency, or Crown corporation, (a) when providing a good or service, does that organization charge a fuel surcharge or any other charge or fee related to the cost of fuel; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) what is the nature or description of the good or service provided for which a fuel surcharge or related fee is charged, (ii) in each case, when was the fuel surcharge or fee first instituted, (iii) how often is the fuel surcharge or fee adjusted, (iv) what were the dates of each occasion on which the fuel surcharge or fee was adjusted or set since January 1, 2011, (v) for each adjustment or setting of a fuel surcharge or fee referred to in (iv), what was the amount established on that date for the fuel surcharge or fee?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 842--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to the court cases on the changes to the Interim Federal Health Program: (a) what are the costs, including legal fees, incurred by the government to date; and (b) what are the estimated total costs, including legal fees, of the government’s appeal of the Federal Court’s ruling?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 843--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With respect the procurement of goods and services for use by the Department of National Defence: for each awarded contract over $25,000 for which a supplier cancelled or failed to meet a delivery date after March 31, 2011, what is (a) the name of the contract; (b) the type of contract or method of supply; (c) the reference number, solicitation number, and tracking number; (d) the names of all parties to the contract; (e) the date the contract was awarded; (f) the description of the good or service to be supplied; (g) the value of the contract; (h) the delivery date specified in the contract; (i) the value of monies paid by the government to the supplier in advance of delivery, if applicable; (j) the date that the good or service was delivered, for goods and services that were delivered late; (k) the planned future delivery date, for deliveries that remain outstanding; (l) the date the contract was cancelled, for cancelled contracts; (m) the reason for the cancellation of the contract, for cancelled contracts; (n) the value of advance payments returned to the government, for undelivered goods and services; (o) the values and conditions of the contractual penalties for late and failed delivery; and (p) the value of monies recuperated by the government pursuant to penalties for late or failed delivery?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 847--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to meteorological services: (a) what is the name, location and identifying number or code of each terrestrial Automated Weather Observing Station which has been in service in Canada at any time since January 1, 2006; (b) what is the name, location, identifying number or code, and model type of each Ocean Data Acquisition System buoy which has been in service in Canadian waters, or in international waters but operated by the Government of Canada, since January 1, 2006; (c) what is the name, location and identifying number or code of each weather radar station which has been in service in Canada at any time since January 1, 2006; (d) what is the name, location and identifying number or code of each lightning sensor which has been in service in Canada at any time since January 1, 2006; and (e) for each station, buoy or sensor referred to in (a) through (d), for each month since January 1, 2006, (i) on how many days has it been out of service, (ii) what was the reason for which it was not in service, (iii) was it returned to service, (iv) which department or agency is responsible for maintaining it?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 848--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to government public relations, for each contract for the provision of photography services to the office of the Prime Minister, a minister, a Minister of State, or a Parliamentary Secretary, since January 1, 2006: (a) what was the date, file number, and value of the contract; (b) what were the dates on which the photography was carried out; (c) what was the event or occasion, if any, to which the photography related; (d) were the photographs which were produced used in any government publications or on any government websites; (e) were the photographs used in any other way, specifying the way in which they were so used; (f) who has custody or care of the photographs which were produced; (g) if no longer required for the day-to-day operations of the office, have the photographs been transferred, or will they be transferred, to a library or historical division within the department, a national museum, or Library and Archives Canada; (h) does the department, agency, or other government organization for which the Minister, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary is responsible, have an office or position which has the capacity to carry out photography, identifying the office or position; and (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, why were the services of an outside photographer engaged?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 849--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to government procurement: what are the details of all contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to ministers since June 6, 2014 specifying (a) for each such contract (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work; and (b) in the case of a contract for speechwriting, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 850--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to government communications since September 18, 2014: (a) for each press release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by any government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code-number, (iv) subject matter; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed on (i) the web site of the issuing department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) Marketwire, (iii) Canada Newswire, (iv) any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of using the service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 851--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to Parks Canada, in respect of Beaubassin National Historic Site of Canada (“Beaubassin”): (a) what are the details of all expenditures, broken down by fiscal year since 2002-2003 inclusive, related to the (i) acquisition, (ii) maintenance, (iii) archeological research, (iv) archival research, (v) other expenditures, specifying the nature of those other expenditures; (b) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all reports or documents concerning the operation of Beaubassin; (c) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all reports or documents concerning archaeological or historical research related to Beaubassin; and (d) what are the bibliographic details of all published reports or articles relating to Beaubassin authored, co-authored, or contributed to by any archaeologist or researcher working for, on behalf of, or in association with the government or an employee or officer of the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 852--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Mint's television advertising activities since January 1, 2009: for any communication between the Mint and any agency, department, Crown corporation, or other organization of government other than the Mint, (a) what is the date; (b) who are the sender and recipient; and (c) what is the file or reference number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 853--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to government communications, for each department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government body: (a) how far back in time does its website archive of press releases and backgrounders extend; (b) what is the rationale for the date range of press releases and backgrounders which are retained for on-line access; (c) are press releases and backgrounders which pre-date the date limit retained elsewhere; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, where are they retained, and are they accessible to the public; (e) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document, order, policy, directive, or other record in which the current policy pertaining to the retention of press releases and backgrounders on websites is set forth; (f) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document, order, policy, directive, or other record in which any former policy pertaining to the retention of press releases and backgrounders on websites was set forth; (g) is there a government-wide policy pertaining to the retention of press releases and backgrounders on websites; and (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document, order, policy, directive, or other record in which the current policy, or any former policy, is or was set forth?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 854--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to regional ministerial responsibilities, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusively: (a) which ministers have had regional representation responsibilities, and for which provinces, territories or other regions; (b) what were the start and end dates of those responsibilities; (c) what were the instructions given to each minister in respect of his or her regional ministerial responsibilities; (d) what were the operating expenditures for each minister in respect of his or her regional representation responsibilities, including the amount spent on wages, salaries, contracts for the provision of services, contracts for the provision of goods, office leases, and other expenditures, giving particulars of those expenditures; (e) where were these leased offices located; (f) how many employees are or were employed by each minister’s regional office; (g) where did each employee have his or her principal place of employment; and (h) what were the travel and hospitality expenses of each minister or minister’s employee in respect of their regional ministerial responsibilities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 855--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to a verification strategy for Métis identification systems: (a) what are the purposes of proposed or actual contracts with the Canadian Standards Association to develop a verification strategy for Métis identification systems; (b) what is the monetary value of the contract or contracts; (c) what are the effective dates of the contract or contracts; (d) what is the file number of the contract or contracts; (e) what is the scope of the work to be carried out under any such contract; (f) was any such contract awarded on a sole-source or competitive basis; (g) if any such contract was awarded on a competitive basis, how many bids were received; (h) are there provisions for Métis employment or procurement benefits under this contract; (i) has the government consulted with Métis representative organizations concerning Métis identification generally or as concerns this contract in particular and, if so, (i) with which Métis representative organizations has it consulted, (ii) what was the nature, duration, and extent of such consultations, (iii) what was the outcome of those consultations; (j) what definitions of “Métis” are to be used for this verification strategy; (k) what is the rationale behind the definition or definitions of “Métis” that are to be used; and (l) is the verification strategy consistent with Articles 9 and 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, if not, what is the nature and extent of the inconsistency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 856--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With respect to the report entitled "The Unified Family Court Summative Evaluation", released in March 2009 by the Department of Justice: (a) what progress has been made on each of the three recommendations outlined in section 8; (b) since fiscal year 2002-2003, what initiatives, as indicated on page 8 of the English version of the report, has the Department of Justice launched to enhance the level of services that provincial and territorial governments provide in the area of family law; and (c) how much federal funding was spent in each fiscal year since 2002-2003 on every initiative identified in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 857--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Canada Science and Technology Museum, what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all briefing notes, briefing materials, reports, engineering assessments, or other documents, produced, created, or modified since January 1, 2006, concerning either the condition of the building housing the Canada Science and Technology Museum on St. Laurent Boulevard in Ottawa, repairs which have been made to that building, or which are or have been contemplated to be made, or options for the replacement of the building, held by: (a) the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation; (b) the Department of Canadian Heritage; (c) Public Works and Government Services Canada; (d) the National Capital Commission, (e) the Treasury Board Secretariat; and (f) the Privy Council Office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 859--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With respect to Crown copyright: (a) what is the total revenue collected, in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive, by each department, agency, or other government organization, for the licensing of the use of works for which copyright is held by Canada or a department, agency, or other government organization; (b) what are the works which have been so licensed, specifying the title or nature of the work, and the date of publication or creation of the work; (c) what has been the total cost to each department or agency to administer the licensing of those works in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive; (d) how many infringements of Crown or federal government copyright have been the subject of litigation or other action in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive; (e) what have been the outcomes or resolutions of each such litigation or other action in (d); (f) how many applications to license the use of Crown copyright works have been declined or rejected since fiscal year 2005-2006, specifying the title or nature of the work, the date of publication or creation of the work and the reason for denying or rejecting the application; and (g) what steps, if any, has the government taken to mitigate the impact or costs to users of perpetual Crown copyright in unpublished works?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 860--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the public service, for each fiscal year since 2008-2009 inclusive: (a) how many days of sick leave were due to public service employees at the end of each fiscal year, or as of the most recent date in the current fiscal year, as the case may be; (b) how many public service employees retired; (c) how many public service employees left the public service for reasons other than retirement, distinguishing those who left because of (i) disability, (ii) resignation, (iii) termination, (iv) death, (v) other reasons; (d) of the total sick leave referred to in (a), how many sick days were not paid, broken down by the categories of termination enumerated in (b) and (c); and (e) what is the dollar value of the sick days referred to in each of (a), (d) and (e)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 861--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: what is the amount and percentage of all “lapsed spending,” broken down by year, from 2006 to 2013?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 863--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to Employment Insurance benefits: (a) what are the amounts paid out for Employment Insurance benefits in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (b) how many beneficiaries have there been in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (c) how many applications for Employment Insurance benefits have there been in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (d) how many Employment Insurance applications in Prince Edward Island have been rejected from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available; (e) what is the average waiting time for Employment Insurance applications in Prince Edward Island to be processed from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available, and what is the longest single waiting time on record; (f) what is the number of Employment Insurance appeals in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available, (iii) number of positive decisions on appeals, (iv) number of negative decisions on appeals; (g) what is the average wait time for decisions made on Employment Insurance appeals in Prince Edward Island from fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) electoral district or most detailed level available, and what is the longest single waiting time on record; and (h) if any of the information requested is not available, what are the reasons, in detail, as to why that is the case?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 864--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the administration of the Access to Information Act: (a) what are the criteria and what is the process by which the government judges that a request made under the act is frivolous or vexatious in nature; (b) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of the documents in which the criteria and process are set forth; (c) for each government institution, how many requests has the institution processed since January 1, 2014; (d) of the number of requests in (c), how many were considered frivolous or vexatious according to the criteria and process set out in (a); and (e) for each government institution, what were the ten most recent requests processed which, in the opinion of government, are frivolous or vexatious, providing the file number of the request, the text of the request, and the category of requester, distinguishing the following categories, (i) academia, (ii) business (private sector), (iii) media, (iv) organization, (v) member of the public, (vi) decline to identify?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 865--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the government’s processing of immigration applications: (a) what is the total average cost to government and time required to complete a single application for (i) federal skilled worker, (ii) federal skilled trade, (iii) Canadian Experience Class, (iv) Quebec-selected skilled workers, (v) Provincial Nominee Program, (vi) start-up visa, (vii) self-employed people, (viii) spouse, common-law, or conjugal partner, or dependent children sponsorship, (ix) parent and grandparents sponsorship, (x) inland asylum claimant, (xi) government-sponsored refugee, (xii) privately sponsored refugee, (xiii) temporary resident visa, (xiv) parents and grandparents super visa, (xv) Express Entry system; and (b) in each fiscal year since 2009-2010 inclusive, how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) accepted, (iv) rejected, (v) otherwise treated, providing details of that treatment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 866--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to government communications: for each department, agency or crown corporation, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of all documents, reports, memoranda, orders, directives, guidelines, manuals, or any other records pertaining to the use of the phrase “Harper Government” in press releases or other communications material?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 867--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to legislative drafting: (a) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of all documents, reports, memoranda, or any other records since January 1, 2008, concerning practices and procedures related to the drafting of the titles, short titles, or alternative titles of government bills introduced in the Senate or the House of Commons; and (b) for each government bill introduced in the Senate or the House of Commons since January 1, 2008, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of all documents, reports, memoranda, or any other records, since January 1, 2008, concerning the titles, short titles, or alternative titles of that bill?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 868--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to materials prepared for past or current Parliamentary Secretaries or their staff from April 1, 2013, to the present: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 869--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund, since September 2011: (a) how many applications (i) were successful and received funding under this program, (ii) were rejected through calls for proposals; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) corresponding file and reference number; (c) what is the total cost of administering the program thus far for each year since 2011; (d) how much funding is left; (e) how many major projects under this program will go to, or went to, expanding existing centres; (f) what is the value of the successful major projects applications that went to (i) the construction of new centres, (ii) the expanding of existing centres; (g) how many of the successful Mid-Sized Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund applications went to (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; (h) what is the value of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund applications that went to (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; (i) what is the reason most often given for rejecting an application; (j) what are the reasons given for rejecting an application and what is the frequency of each reason; (k) will the program be renovated next year and, if so, when will the next call for proposals be issued; and (l) with respect to rejected applications, what was the location and value of each proposal, broken down by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) corresponding file and reference number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 873--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) how many applications were received for Labour Market Opinions from 2012 to 2014 inclusively, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (b) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were approved from 2012 to 2014 inclusively, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (c) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were received for high skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (d) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were received for low skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (e) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were approved for high skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (f) how many applications for Labour Market Opinions were approved for low skill temporary foreign workers, per year from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (g) how many applications were received for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2014, broken down by (i) total number, (ii) month, (iii) province; (h) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved in 2014, broken down by (i) total number, (ii) month, (iii) province; (i) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (j) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for low wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (k) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (l) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for low wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (m) how many work permits were issued from 2012 to 2014 inclusively, broken down by (i) total number per year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (n) how many work permits were issued for high skill temporary foreign workers from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (o) how many work permits were issued for low skill temporary foreign workers from 2012 to 2014 inclusively; (p) how many work permits were issued for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (q) how many work permits were issued for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2014; (r) how many employers with fewer than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments since June 2014; and (s) how many employers with more than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments since June 2014?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 874--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) when will Employment and Social Development Canada begin publicly reporting data on the number of temporary foreign workers approved and the names of employers receiving positive Labour Market Impact Assessments; (b) for which National Occupation Codes are employers no longer allowed to seek temporary foreign workers in regions with unemployment rates of more than 6%; (c) how many provinces and territories, and which ones, have negotiated new annex agreements regarding Labour Market Impact Assessment exemptions with the federal government; (d) how many information-sharing deals have been signed with provinces and territories regarding the temporary foreign worker program, and which provinces and territories are they; (e) how many information-sharing agreements between federal government departments have been revised since June 2014; (f) when will the new Statistics Canada surveys on Job Vacancies and National Wages be implemented; (g) when will the new Job Matching service be implemented, and how will it work; (h) what is the target date for offering the option of applying for jobs online directly through the Job Bank; (i) what specific safeguards will be in place to protect the privacy of applicants, if program officers are able to see the number of applicants and the relevance of their skills; (j) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on the inclusion of this data in the operation of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (k) how many investigators are assigned to follow up on tips from the government’s confidential tip line and the online tip portal; (l) what is the budget for the confidential tip line and the online tip portal; (m) how many tips have been received on the confidential tip line since April, broken down by month; (n) how many tips have been received through the online tip portal since its creation, broken down by month; (o) how many investigations have been conducted as a result of tips received; (p) how many employers using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program have been subject to an inspection in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (q) how many inspections conducted in 2013-2014 have involved an on-site visit; (r) when is the new regulatory framework for penalties for non-compliance expected to be in place; (s) how many comments were received on the government’s Discussion Paper on the regulatory framework; (t) how many letters of complaint has the Department received about the increase in fees for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (u) when is the new privilege fee expected to be introduced; (v) when is the review of Labour Market Impact Assessment-exempt streams expected to be completed, and who will be consulted as part of that process; (w) how many errors on the government’s list of employers with temporary foreign workers were determined to have been the result of employers giving the government the wrong information, and how many employers will face sanctions as a result; and (x) what action will the Department take in cases where Canadians are laid off after temporary foreign workers are hired?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 875--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many ISS members assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability benefit cases have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, (ii) a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, (iii) a provincial or territorial licence in nursing, (iv) a provincial or territorial licence in occupational therapy, (v) a provincial or territorial licence in pharmacy, (vi) a provincial or territorial licence in physiotherapy, (vii) a provincial or territorial licence in psychology, (viii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (k) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) but currently assigned to the ISS have been assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability benefit cases, and of those members, how many have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, (ii) a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, (iii) a provincial or territorial licence in nursing, (iv) a provincial or territorial licence in occupational therapy, (v) a provincial or territorial licence in pharmacy, (vi) a provincial or territorial licence in physiotherapy, (vii) a provincial or territorial licence in psychology, (viii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (l) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (m) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (o) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (p) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (t) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (u) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (v) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS, in total and broken down by year; (w) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed, in total and broken down by year; (x) how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (y) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (dd) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (ee) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD, in total and broken down by year; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed, in total and broken down by year; (gg) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (hh) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (nn) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (oo) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness, broken down by (i) year, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (rr) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship, broken down by (i) year, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted; (ss) how many AD members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (tt) how many ISS members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (uu) how many EIS members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (vv) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ww) when is the consultants’ report on productivity due to be completed and will the report be made public; (xx) when did the Tribunal begin assigning cases to members in 2013, broken down by (i) ISS, (ii) EIS, (iii) AD; (yy) at what point in 2013 did all existing members have case files assigned to them, broken down by (i) ISS, (ii) EIS, (iii) AD; (zz) what was the rationale for not maintaining the old Boards of Referees, EI Umpires, Review Tribunals, and Pensions Appeal Board until their existing caseloads were completely finished; and (aaa) what was the rationale for imposing a cap on the number of Tribunal members at the time of the Tribunal’s creation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 876--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to Veterans’ Affairs Canada offices: how many clients have been served each year from 2006 to 2014 inclusively in each Veterans Affairs Canada office (excluding Service Canada locations, Operational Stress Injury clinics, and Integrated Personnel Support Centres), including the nine recently closed offices in Thunder Bay, Sydney, Charlottetown, Corner Brook, Windsor, Brandon, Saskatoon, Kelowna, and Prince George?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 877--
Mr. John Rafferty:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor): what are the total annual expenditures, for each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to the present, for (a) the Northern Ontario Development Program; (b) the Community Futures Program; (c) the Economic Development Initiative; (d) the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund; (e) general administration; and (f) any other temporary or permanent program or service delivered by the FedNor during this time period that is not listed above?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 878--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to the visit to Canada of the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission on September 26, 2014: (a) when was the invitation first sent by the government; (b) what was the planned agenda for the visit; (c) which department was responsible for the visit; (d) what was the budget for the visit, broken down by department; (e) when was the Toronto portion added to the visit; (f) which department added the Toronto portion; (g) who was on the guest list for the Toronto event, including the name, the company or organization, and which department or Minister’s office placed them on the list; (h) what was the cost of the Toronto event, broken down by (i) food, (ii) room rental, (iii) staging, (iv) other costs; (i) did the government do a value for money assessment for the Toronto event and, if so, (i) what is the tracking number, (ii) what are the conclusions; (j) how much did the flight for the Presidents to Europe cost; (k) did the government look at other options than the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) flight and, if so, (i) which options were reviewed, (ii) why were they rejected; (l) what was the passenger manifest for the trip; (m) did the flight make any stops on the way to or from Brussels; (n) if the answer in (m) is no, how did the Prime Minister travel from Toronto, including the cost of this trip if not included with the trip to Brussels; (o) has the government offered the use of RCAF planes for travel of other visiting dignitaries since 2006 and, if so, for which visitors; (p) was the venue for the Toronto event tendered, (i) if so, what was the Request for Proposal reference number, (ii) if not, which exception from the procurement directive was invoked and when did this receive approval from cabinet; (q) which government officials attended the Toronto event, including their travel method and cost; and (r) were there any passengers on the RCAF flight to Toronto from Ottawa who were not government employees and, if so, what are their names and their reason for being on the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 879--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to government’s loans and grants to businesses since 2006: (a) what are the names of the companies that received grants and loans, including (i) the program that the loan was granted under, (ii) the amount of the loan, (iii) the amount that has currently paid back, (iv) the amount that is currently outstanding, (v) the amount that was originally announced, (vi) the reason for any write down or write off, (vii) the number of jobs that were supposed to be created by the loan, (viii) the number of jobs that were actually created after the loan was issued, (ix) the number of jobs that were committed to be maintained because of the loan, (x) the number of jobs that were actually maintained; and (b) for companies that failed to meet their job numbers, what action has the government taken to address the missed target?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 880--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to government and agency contracts for communications since 2006: (a) how much has the government spent on contracts for communications products; (b) whom has the government contracted for writing, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the type of service provided, (iii) the event or announcement that was linked to the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered, (v) how much the contract was for, including whether the contract value changed, (vi) the date the product was release, (vii) the date of the announcement; (c) whom has the government contracted for media training, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the persons that the training was provided to, including their title, (iii) whether the contract was tendered, (iv) how much the contract was for, including whether the contract value changed, (v) the date of the contract; (d) whom has the government contracted for media monitoring, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the length of the contract, (iii) the cost of the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered; (e) whom has the government contracted for distribution of press releases, including (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the length of the contract, (iii) the cost of the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered; (f) whom has the government contracted for event staging, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the type of service provided, (iii) the event or announcement that was linked to the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered, (v) how much the contract was for, including whether the contract value changed, (vi) the date the product was release, (vii) the date of the announcement; and (g) whom has the government contracted for any other communications product, specifying (i) the name of the organization or individual, (ii) the length of the contract, (iii) the cost of the contract, (iv) whether the contract was tendered, (v) what the contract was for?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 881--
Mr. Arnold Chan:
With regard to the government’s sale of assets over $1,000 after 2007: (a) what were the assets sold, specifying (i) the asset sale price, (ii) the name of the purchaser, (iii) whether multiple bids were received, (iv) what amount the asset was purchased for by the government, (v) the reason for the sale; (b) was a third party used for the sale and, if so, (i) what is the name of the third party, (ii) was this contract tendered or not; (c) in the case where a third party was used, how much was the third party paid for their services; (d) for the government’s sale of stocks, (i) how much of the stock was sold, (ii) how much does the government still hold; (e) for sale of privately held companies in which the government held a position, (i) does the government still hold a position in the company, (ii) did the government have a market assessment done before the sale and, if so, by whom, (iii) what was the difference in the amount the government projected from the sale and the actual amount received; (f) how much income did the asset bring in in the year prior to its sale; and (g) how much was spent marketing the sale of each asset?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 882--
Mr. Robert Chisholm:
With regard to Service Canada: for the past five fiscal years, (a) how many staff in the Integrity unit have been allocated in each year to (i) Employment Insurance (EI), (ii) the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), (iii) Old Age Security (OAS), (iv) Canada Pension Plan (CPP); (b) what is the average caseload for EI inspectors annually; (c) how many EI overpayments have been made annually by number and by amount; (d) how many EI overpayments have been collected annually by number and by amount; (e) how many EI overpayments have been written off annually by number and by amount; (f) what is the average caseload for CPP inspectors annually; (g) how many CPP overpayments have been made annually by number and by amount; (h) how many CPP overpayments have been collected annually by number and by amount; (i) how many CPP overpayments have been written off annually by number and by amount; (j) what is the average caseload for OAS inspectors annually; (k) how many OAS overpayments have been made annually by number and by amount; (l) how many OAS overpayments have been collected annually by number and by amount; (m) how many OAS overpayments have been written off annually by number and by amount; (n) what is the average caseload for TFWP inspectors; (o) what is the number of Service Canada employees on long-term disability leave every year, excluding those on parental leave, in total and broken down by (i) EI call centres, (ii) EI processing centres, (iii) CPP and OAS call centres, (iv) Labour Market Impact Assessment processing centres; (p) what is the definition for the performance indicator “future expenditure reduction” for the Integrity Section listed in the 2013-2014 Departmental Performance Report; and (q) what has been the Department’s performance on “future expenditure reduction” annually, broken down by (i) EI, (ii) CPP, (iii) OAS?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 884--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to the government's Global Markets Action Plan (GMAP): (a) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (b) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted during the creation of GMAP; (c) what is the total of all government expenditures related to the consultation process related to GMAP, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses, including transportation, accommodation, rental meeting spaces or equipment, food and other travel-related expenses, (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, broken down by all related details; (d) what are the titles and file names of all reports, emails and briefing notes prepared in relation to the development and consultation process involved in the creation of GMAP?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 887--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to the federal public service employed in Prince Edward Island and the City of Charlottetown, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive, for both the province and the city separately, public service wide and for each department: (a) how many persons were employed; (b) how many public service employees were hired; (c) how many public service employees retired; (d) how many public service employees left the public service for reasons other than retirement, distinguishing those who left because of (i) disability, (ii) resignation, (iii) termination, (iv) death, (v) other reasons; (e) how many of those employees, by both number and percentage, were (i) full-time, (ii) part-time, (iii) students, (iv) any other employment category in the public service; (f) what occupational tier level did the employees occupy by both number and percentage; (g) what was the mean, median, and modal salary for a full-time employee; and (h) what was the total paid to employees (i) in salary, (ii) in other benefits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 888--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to Health Canada: for the last ten years, (a) how many drug safety inspectors has Health Canada employed, broken down by year; (b) how many inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies has Health Canada conducted within Canada, broken down by year; (c) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected within Canada have received a warning letter or citation from Health Canada, broken down by year; (d) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected within Canada have had penalties imposed, broken down by year; (e) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected within Canada have been subject to a ban, broken down by year; (f) how many inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies has Health Canada conducted internationally, broken down by year; (g) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have received a warning letter or citation from Health Canada, broken down by year; (h) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have had penalties imposed, broken down by year; (i) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have been subject to a ban, broken down by year; (j) how many notices of violation concerning companies operating in Canada has Health Canada received from foreign regulators, broken down by year; (k) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies has Health Canada inspected because of a notification received from a foreign regulator, broken down by year; (l) how many clinical trials has Health Canada inspected, broken down by year; (m) how many clinical trials received a warning letter or citation from Health Canada following an inspection, broken down by year; (n) how many clinical trials have been shut down by Health Canada following an inspection, broken down by year; (o) how many investigations has Health Canada conducted regarding promotion of off-label prescription of drugs by pharmaceutical companies, broken down by year; (p) how many fines or penalties has Health Canada levied for off-label promotions, broken down by year; (q) how many reports of side effects relating to off-label prescriptions of pharmaceuticals has Health Canada received, broken down by year; and (r) when will Health Canada begin including side effects related to off-label prescriptions in its public database?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 890--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
—With regard to the case before the courts between Daniel Christopher Scott, Mark Douglas Campbell, Gavin Michael David Flett, Kevin Albert Matthew Berry, Bradley Darren Quast, and Aaron Michael Bedard, Respondents (Plaintiffs) and Attorney General of Canada Appellant (Defendant): (a) what has been the total cost to the government to pursue this matter in the courts, broken down by expense and (i) cost incurred before September 6, 2013, (ii) cost incurred since September 6, 2013; (b) who has been consulted by the government throughout the proceedings, broken down by (i) name, (ii) date; (c) what are the internal tracking numbers of all documents, communications or briefing notes regarding the aforementioned case; and (d) how much more has the government budgeted to spend on this file?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 892--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and subsequently the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development: during the period from 2004 to 2014, what is the total number of employees who were posted outside of Canada for ten or more consecutive years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 893--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With respect to the interim Canadian Wheat Board (CWB): (a) what is the salary range afforded to the executive management of the interim CWB; (b) what information does the government possess as to the bonuses, benefits, fees, and other forms of compensation are the members of the executive management receiving; (c) what information does the government possess as to the bonuses, benefits, fees, and other forms of compensation will the members of the executive management receive upon the transfer of the interim CWB to new ownership; and (d) what commitments have been made regarding bonuses, benefits, fees, and other forms of compensation for the members of executive management after the transfer of the interim CWB to new ownership?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 894--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With respect to changes to Canada’s food safety laws: (a) what is the status of regulations requiring better labelling of food safety risks caused by meat tenderization and related processing techniques; (b) what communications and consultations have taken place with industry in the last year regarding these new regulations; (c) what compliance rates have been measured in regard to the new regulations; (d) what is the status of new regulations developed in regards to ensuring better traceability for Canadian fresh produce and meat products; (e) what is the status of the implementation of regulations related to Bill S-11, the Safe Food For Canadians Act; (f) what has been the cost of developing new regulations related to Bill S-11; (g) what is the status of the implementation of all of the recommendations to improve food safety that were outlined in the Weatherill report; (h) what are the names and costs of food safety programs that will sunset in the years 2014 and 2015; and (i) who was consulted with regards to new regulations related to the implementation of Bill S-11?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 895--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to International Mobility Programs: (a) when will Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) begin proactively posting more data, what data will be posted, and how often; (b) when will the new compliance fee for employer-specific work permits be levied, and at what level will the fee be set; (c) when will the new privilege fee be in place for open work permit holders; (d) how many CIC staff are assigned to investigations of employers for compliance; (e) how many employers have been investigated in 2014, broken down by month; (f) what penalty regime is in place for employers who break the rules; (g) how many employers have been subjected to penalties or sanctions for breaking the rules; (h) how many investigations have included an on-site inspection; (i) how many information-sharing agreements have been signed with other federal government departments; (j) how many information-sharing agreements have been signed with provincial and territorial governments, and which provinces and territories are they; (k) which streams have seen changes to their guidelines or requirements since June 2014; (l) has the review of Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA)-exempt streams to determine if they should become part of the LMIA-required stream taken place yet and, if so, what are the outcomes of that review; (m) what measures have been taken to promote the International Experience Canada program to Canadians; and (n) what is the new wage floor for Intra-Company Transferees with specialized knowledge and when did it come into effect?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 896--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to International Mobility Programs, for the years 2006 to 2014: (a) for each year, how many work permits were issued under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in total and by source country; (b) for each year, how many Canadians worked in the United States and Mexico under the auspices of NAFTA; (c) which other Free Trade Agreements (FTA) include provisions on worker mobility, and for each FTA how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (d) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under the auspices of a FTA and which countries did they work in; (e) for each year, how many work permits were issued under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), in total and by source country; (f) for each year, how many Canadians worked abroad under the auspices of GATS and which countries did they work in; (g) which international agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment and, for each agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (h) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under these same international agreements and in which countries did they work; (i) which provincial agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (j) which reciprocal employment programs or agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (k) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under these same reciprocal programs or agreements and in which countries did they work; (l) which employment benefit programs or agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (m) for each year, how many Canadians worked in other countries under employment benefit programs or agreements and in which countries did they work; (n) which research or studies-related programs or agreements allow workers to work for a Canadian employer in Canada without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (o) which programs or agreements fall under “Other Canadian interests,” and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; (p) which programs or agreements fall under “Other work permit holders without Labour Market Opinion,” and for each program or agreement, how many work permits were issued each year, in total and by source country; and (q) for each year, how many spouse/common law partners were issued work permits, in total and by source country?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 897--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to International Experience Canada, for the years 2013 and 2014: (a) with which countries did Canada have an agreement; (b) what were the reciprocal quotas; (c) how many Canadians travelled to each country under the auspices of the agreement; (d) how many youths from each country travelled to Canada under the auspices of the agreement; (e) what measures has the government taken to promote the program to Canadians; and (f) what measures has the government undertaken to reduce barriers to Canadian participants in some countries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 898--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to Express Entry: (a) with whom did the government consult in regard to the creation and design of the program, and on what dates; (b) with whom did the government consult in regard to the development of the point system, and on what dates; (c) what studies did the government conduct before the decision was made to introduce Express Entry; (d) what studies did the government conduct in designing the program; (e) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on the design of the program; (f) what is the target date for matching prospective immigrants with potential employers; (g) what precautions will be taken to ensure that employers have tried to hire eligible Canadians before they are allowed to search for prospective immigrants; (h) how will the system identify potential candidates for employers; (i) how often will draws for names be conducted; (j) who will decide how many names will be drawn in each draw; (k) who will decide how names drawn will be divided among the three immigration streams included in Express Entry; (l) when will the first evaluation of Express Entry be conducted; and (m) what is the projected budget for the next three years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 899--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to the Live-In Caregiver Program: (a) how many applications did the government receive for permanent residence from live-in caregivers for each year from 2010 to 2014 inclusively; (b) for each year, how many of the applications came from caregivers who had cared for children and how many came from caregivers who had cared for seniors or persons living with a disability; (c) how many staff were assigned to process applications for permanent residence from live-in caregivers in each year; (d) whom did the government consult before making changes to the program and on which date did the consultations take place; (e) did the government conduct any studies regarding the impact of a cap on permanent resident applications from live-in caregivers; (f) will caregivers be allowed to study in Canada before achieving permanent residence, and if so, will they be allowed to pay domestic tuition; and (g) what are the current requirements for advertising for applicants for a Labour Market Impact Assessment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 900--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to refugee applications from 2010 to 2014: (a) what is the average processing time for refugee applications, broken down by (i) year, (ii) processing centre, (iii) government-assisted refugees, (iv) privately sponsored refugees; (b) for each year, where were application processing centres located; and (c) for each year and for each centre, how many staff worked on processing refugee applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 901--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to the government’s event entitled “Strong Girls, Strong World” scheduled to be held in Toronto on October 22, 2014: (a) who within the government was responsible for the organization of the event; (b) what was the entire budget of the event, (i) did the event go over budget, (ii) if so, what were the cost overruns, (iii) were there unforeseen expenses, (iv) if the event was cancelled, what was the amount of money the government was able to recover, (v) if the event was cancelled, what was the amount of money the government was unable to recover; (c) if the event was cancelled, will the event be rescheduled in 2015 and, if so, (i) what is the new date of the event, (ii) what is the estimated budget of the new event; (d) what was the total cost for the venue rental at the Central Technical School; (e) how many names were on the final guest list and what were the names; (f) did the government pay for the travel expenses of international visitors; (g) how was the Central Technical School chosen as a venue for the event, (i) on what date was the school first contacted with regard to the Summit, (ii) how many other venues did the event organizers contact other than the Central Technical School; (h) what was the total cost for security for the event; (i) what was the total cost for meals and hospitality for the event; and (j) was the event paid for from general consolidated revenue?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 902--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to government funding: for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present, (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral districts of Etobicoke North, Etobicoke Centre, and Etobicoke—Lakeshore, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 903--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s “Implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) and the Outcomes of the Twenty-Third Special Session of the General Assembly (2000) in the Context of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women and the Adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action: Canada’s National Review, June 2014”: (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted during the creation of this review; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (c) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted during the creation of this plan; (d) what is the total of all government expenditures related to the consultation process related to the plan, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses, including transportation, accommodation, rental meeting spaces or equipment, food and other travel-related expenses, (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, broken down by all related details; (e) what are the titles and file names of all reports, emails and briefing notes prepared in relation to the development and consultation process involved in finalizing the creation of the Review; and (f) how much funding has been allocated to the deployment of this proposal for fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 904--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s Action Plan to Address Family Violence and Violent Crimes Against Aboriginal Women and Girls (the Plan): (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted during the creation of the Plan; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; (c) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted during the creation of the Plan; (d) what is the total of all government expenditures related to the consultation process related to the Plan, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses, including transportation, accommodation, rental meeting spaces or equipment, food and other travel-related expenses, (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, broken down by all related details; (e) what are the titles and file names of all reports, emails and briefing notes prepared in relation to the development and consultation process involved in finalizing the creation of the Plan; (f) what is the fiscal year breakdown and allocation of the $25 million pledged for the Plan; (g) what are the deadlines; (h) what are the dates, times and locations of the meetings with various provincial and territorial representations consulted during the creation of the Plan; (i) what are the projected deadlines for the government’s safety plans set out in the Plan; (j) during which fiscal years will Public Safety Canada begin allocating the $1.72 million to support Aboriginal communities to develop safety plans; (k) during which fiscal years will Justice Canada begin allocating the $500,000 to support Aboriginal communities to break intergenerational cycles of violence; (l) during which fiscal years will Status of Women Canada begin allocating the $5 million to work with First Nations, Inuit and Metis communities to denounce and prevent violence against Aboriginal women, and what is the breakdown per year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 905--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to materials prepared for deputy heads or their staff from September 19, 2014, to the present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or the subject matter of the document, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 906--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to materials prepared for Assistant Deputy Ministers from September 19, 2014, to the present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or the subject matter of the document, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 907--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to materials prepared for ministers or their staff from September 19, 2014, to the present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or the subject matter of the document, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 908--
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé:
With regard to the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program: (a) how many staff are currently assigned to processing applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIA); (b) how many staff were assigned to processing applications for Labour Market Opinions (LMO) from 2011 to 2013; (c) what is the average time to process an application for an LMIA; (d) what was the average time to process an application for an LMO from 2011 to 2013; (e) how many applications have taken more than two months to process from 2011 to 2014; (f) what is the average time to process an application for a work permit; (g) what was the average time to process an application for a work permit from 2011 to 2014; (h) how many complaints has the government received about workers not arriving until after the harvest has begun; and (i) how many complaints has the government received about workers not arriving until after the harvest is over?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 909--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
With regard to Service Canada: (a) who is responsible for handling Employment Insurance (EI) callbacks; (b) what is the service standard for EI callbacks; (c) for the last five fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for EI call backs; (d) for the last two fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for EI callbacks broken down by month; (e) for the last five fiscal years, what was the average number of days for an EI callback; (f) who is responsible for handling Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) callbacks; (g) what is the service standard for CPP and OAS callbacks; (h) for the last five fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for CPP and OAS callbacks; (i) for the last two fiscal years, what was the service standard achieved for CPP and OAS callbacks, broken down by month; (j) for the last five fiscal years, what was the average number of days for a CPP and OAS callback; (k) who made the decision to change the service standard for EI call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes; (l) who was consulted in making the decision to change the service standard for EI call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes; (m) who made the decision to change the service standard for CPP and OAS call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes; and (n) who was consulted in making the decision to change the service standard for CPP and OAS call centres from 180 seconds to ten minutes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 910--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to Health Canada: for the last ten years, broken down by year, (a) how many complaints have been received regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers; (b) how many penalties or fines have been imposed for violations of the regulations regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers; (c) how many warning letters or citations have been issued for violations of the regulations regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers; and (d) which companies have been found to have violated the regulations regarding pharmaceutical advertising targeted to consumers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 912--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the ineligibility for Employment Insurance (EI) Sickness Benefits for parents (claimants) who fell ill or became injured while receiving parental benefits because they were not considered to be otherwise available for work under the Employment Insurance Act: for fiscal years 2003-2004 to 2013-2014: (a) how many claimants (i) were denied their initial application for EI sickness benefits by the government because they were deemed to otherwise be not available for work, (ii) appealed their denial of sickness benefits to the Board of Referees, broken down by each fiscal year; (b) how many claimants on parental leave were denied sickness benefits after the Canadian Umpire Benefit (CUB) 77039 decision on March 24, 2013; (c) did Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) appeal CUB 77039, and if not, why not; (d) if HRSDC did not appeal the decision, did it accept the ruling, and if not, why not; (e) is a CUB ruling that is not successfully appealed final and binding on the government; (f) what were the policy implications for HRSDC in the interpretation of the Employment Insurance Act after the significant CUB decision; (g) what process was HRSDC supposed to have followed after the CUB decision (or appeal of said decision) to change implementation of relevant EI policy; (h) what was the specific impact of CUB 77039 on HRSDC policy concerning eligibility of claimants on parental leave accessing sickness benefits; (i) as a result of the CUB 77039 decision, what specific policy directives were made by HRSDC and, if none were made, why not; (j) did the government undertake any analysis or studies concerning the impact of CUB 77039 and, if so, what are the titles, files numbers, and results of any such analysis or studies; (k) did HRSDC deny sickness benefits to claimants post CUB 77039 up to March 24, 2013, and, if so, what is the justification; (l) how many Claimants had active appeals outstanding with the Board of Referees and EI Umpire regarding their denial by the government of sickness benefits while on parental leave as of March 24, 2013; (m) how many of the claimants in (l) did the government subsequently settle with, (i) what was the average settlement cost per claimant, (ii) what were the total legal fees associated with the settlement with the claimants, (iii) what was the total cost of the settlement; (n) what was the rationale for settling with claimants in (m); (o) when did the government decide to settle and when did it settle with claimants described in (m); (p) was the enhanced access to EI sickness benefits announced in Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, the direct result of the CUB 77039 decision; (q) was the CUB 77039 decision disclosed to parliamentarians in either the technical briefing provided by the government to parliamentarians on September 26, 2012, or during the legislative process for Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, if not, why; (r) when did the government realize that the 2002 legislative changes to EI stacking provisions by Bill C-49, Budget Implementation Act 2001, were intended to make sickness benefits available to women who become ill during receipt of parental benefits and what was done about it; (s) what is the total cost of legal services to date to defend against the McCrea v. Canada - Federal Court file number T-210-12; (t) what are the HRSDC reference details of all documents related to CUB 77039 prepared for the Minister or his staff, including, but not limited to, briefings, analysis, and reports, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) titles or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number; and (u) after both the CUB 77039 and CUB 79390A decisions determined that sickness benefits were to be paid to Natalya Rougas and Jane Kittmer, why did the government issue news releases concerning Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, dated September 20, 2012, October 2, 2012, November 20, 2012, December 12, 2012, and March 10, 2013, with the statement “currently, people receiving parental benefits under the EI program do not qualify for sickness benefits because they are not considered to be otherwise available for work”?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 913--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to international trade, respecting the Canada-European Union Summit in Ottawa and Toronto on September 25 and 26, 2014: what are the details of all contracts for goods or services relating to the summit, providing for each contract: (i) the name of the contractor, (ii) a description of the goods or services provided, (iii) the value of the contract, (iv) whether or not there was an open bidding process for the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 914--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to international trade, respecting the Canada-European Union Summit in Ottawa and Toronto on September 25 and 26, 2014: (a) what were the expenses incurred in relation to travel by government officials from the current Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to Ottawa, or to any European location, specifying the location, broken down by (i) department, (ii) individual incurring the expense, (iii) details of the expense; and (b) what were the expenses incurred in Ottawa and in Toronto in relation to all receptions, press conferences, signing ceremonies, official meetings, or bilateral meetings, for Canadian and European officials broken down by (i) department, (ii) individual incurring the expense, (iii) details of the expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 916--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to foreign affairs: (a) what are the dates, locations, and attendees of all meetings held from March 1, 2010, to December 4, 2014, attended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, his staff, or officials from his Department, concerning the Global Market Action Plan; and (b) for all briefing materials or documents prepared for the Minister, his staff, or officials relative to such meetings, whether prepared before or after the meeting, what is (i) the date of the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the Department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 917--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to international trade: (a) what are the dates, locations, and attendees of all meetings held from March 1, 2010, to December 4, 2014, attended by the Minister of International Trade, his staff, or officials from his Department, concerning the 2014 Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy; and (b) for all briefing materials or documents prepared for the Minister, his staff, or officials relative to such meetings, whether prepared before or after the meeting, what is (i) the date of the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the Department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 918--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS): (a) does the strategy include (i) acquisition of three strategic air transport aircraft and stationing them at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Trenton, (ii) doubling the size of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), (iii) acquisition of three armed naval heavy icebreakers, and stationing them in the area of Iqaluit, (iv) building a new civilian-military deepwater docking facility to accommodate the three armed naval heavy icebreakers mentioned in (iii), (v) establishing a new underwater sensor system, (vi) building a new army training centre in the area of Cambridge Bay, (vii) stationing new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle squadrons at both CFB Goose Bay and CFB Comox, (viii) stationing new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft in Yellowknife, (ix) increasing the size of the Canadian Rangers by 500, (x) establishing a 650-member regular forces battalion at CFB Comox, CFB Goose Bay, CFB Trenton, and CFB Bagotville respectively, (xi) adding 1,000 regular force and 750 reserve force personnel to the army in Quebec, (xii) establishing a territorial defence unit in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Saint John, St. John's, Halifax and the Niagara-Windsor corridor respectively, (xiii) recruiting 1,000 regular force personnel for the purpose of improving and enlarging the Atlantic fleet, (xiv) increasing the number of personnel in CFB Gagetown, (xv) stationing new aircraft and personnel at CFB Greenwood, (xvi) increasing the numbers of Pacific navy regular force personnel by about 500, (xvii) deploying new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft at CFB Comox and CFB Winnipeg, (xviii) upgrading fighter aircraft at CFB Cold Lake; (b) what is the rationale for the inclusion or exclusion, from the CFDS, of each of the items mentioned in (a)(i) to (a)(xviii); and (c) for each item mentioned in (a)(i) to (a)(xviii) that is not a part of the strategy, (i) has the government taken any steps since January 1, 2012, to carry out or implement the item, (ii) if the government has not taken any such steps, does it intend to do so, (iii) if the government does intend to implement the item, when does it intend to do so, (iv) if the government does not intend to implement the item, when was this decision made, and what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any document related to that decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 920--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to foreign affairs: for each foreign visit or delegation described under the heading “Travel Expenses for Canadian Representation at International Conferences and Meetings” in the Public Accounts for fiscal years 2006-2007 to 2013-2014 inclusive, for each traveller or delegate who falls under the rubric of “Others” or “Stakeholders”, but not including parliamentarians or spouses of parliamentarians, what is his or her full name and the reason for which he or she was selected to join the visit or delegation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 921--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Departmental Performance Review of actual spending for 2013-2014 on international development and humanitarian assistance to low-income countries: (a) what low-income countries received financial assistance; (b) how much was spent on each of those countries; (c) what countries that were previously in the low-income country category were moved to the categories “fragile states” and “crisis-affected countries”; (d) how much was spent on those newly identified fragile states and crisis-affected countries; and (e) will the $125.9 million in lapsed funding be allocated as end-of-year funding to other programs and, if so, (i) which other programs, (ii) in which specific locations, (iii) how much is allocated for each program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 922--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements: (a) has the 70% federal share of the $400-million federal-provincial fund to support fisheries industry enhancements, announced on October 29, 2013, by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, been accounted for in the fiscal framework; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) in which department, (ii) for which fiscal year, (iii) under which authority, (iv) under which program and sub-program has the funding been accounted for in the fiscal framework; (c) was there any involvement by the government in the announcement of October 29, 2013; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was the nature of that involvement; (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, what were the reasons for the non-involvement; (f) why does the press release issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on December 6, 2013, titled “Minister Shea Highlights Benefits of Canada-European Union Trade Agreement to Newfoundland and Labrador”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (g) why does the press release issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on June 26, 2014, titled “Ministers Continue Collaboration to Protect Fisheries and Support Canadian Fishing and Aquaculture Industries”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (h) why does the press release issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on August 5, 2014, titled “Complete Canada-EU Text Reached”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (i) why does the backgrounder issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on September 26, 2014, titled “Canada-European Union Trade Agreement Summary of Benefits”, make no reference to the $400-million fund referred to in (a); (j) what were the dates and locations of all meetings held between federal and provincial officials concerning the $400-million fund referred to in (a); and (k) what are the dates, titles and file numbers of all dockets, dossiers, reports, documents, briefing notes, briefing materials, or other records concerning the $400-million fund referred to in (a), held by (i) the Privy Council Office, (ii) the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, (iii) the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, (iv) the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, (v) the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 923--
Mr. Murray Rankin:
With regard to the administration of pay by the government: (a) what is the current and total number of government employees; (b) what is the complete listing of government institutions, with the number of employees, broken down by each institution identified; (c) what are the actual costs, including but not limited to, A-Base, B-Based, and sunset funding, for salaries and wages as well as operations and maintenance, and funding sources for the operations of administration of pay, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) organizations specified in (b) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (d) what is the complete list of all government institutions participating in the Public Works and Government Services of Canada (PWGSC) Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, with the number of employees, broken down by each institution identified; (e) what is the itemized list and the comprehensive range of all the pay services or activities that are processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi, New Brunswick; (f) what is the itemized list of all the pay services or activities that are not, in whole or in part, processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi, but that are reliant, in whole or in part, on compensation advisors outside of the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi or that are reliant on compensation advisors within institutions specified in (d); (g) what are the detailed rationales for each item in (f); (h) what is the complete list of all government institutions that are either excluded, in whole or in part, from having any other separate arrangement apart from the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, with the number of employees affected, broken down by each institution identified; (i) what are the detailed rationales and reasons for each item in (h); (j) what are the details of all framework documentation and Treasury Board Submissions (TB-Subs) related to the PWGSC Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative project life cycle, including, but not limited to, (i) business case, (ii) project charter, (iii) work plans, (iv) roadmap, (v) project complexity and risk assessment, (vi) projected schedule and timeline, (vii) projected budget tables, (viii) projected costing tables, (ix) inception/definition phase, (x) identification phase (initiation, feasibility, analysis, close out), (xi) delivery phase (planning, design, implementation, close out), (xii) preliminary project approval, (xiii) effective project approval (EPA); (k) what are the details of all documentation after EPA in (j), including, but not limited to, (i) on-going readiness assessment reports, (ii) internal PWGSC audits, reviews, and reporting, (iii) Treasury Board audits, reviews, and reporting, (iv) external audits, reviews, and reporting from professional services providers and consulting firms, (v) subsequent TB-Subs modifications, amendments, and changes; (l) what are the actual costs and funding sources for the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iv) institutions specified in (d) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (m) what are the actual budgetary and cost impacts from the perspective and standpoint of each affected institution specified in (d) related to the implementation of the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); and (n) what are the details of all PWGSC prequel documentation prior to, preceding, and leading to and from the earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), including, but not limited to, (i) all scenarios, reports, analysis with projected projects budgets, (ii) briefing notes to ministers and deputy heads, (iii) budget and costs, broken down by each fiscal year, from the earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), (iv) funding sources related specifically to the carrying out of the prequel phase exercise?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 924--
Mr. Murray Rankin:
With regard to the administration of pensions by the government: (a) what is the current and total number of pension members, active and retired; (b) what is the complete listing of government institutions, with the number of members, active and retired, broken down by each institution identified; (c) what are the actual costs, including but not limited to, A-Base, B-Based, and sunset funding, for salaries and wages as well as operations and maintenance, and funding sources for the operations of administration of pension, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) institutions specified in (b) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (d) what is the complete list of all government institutions participating in the Public Works and Government Services of Canada (PWGSC) Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, with the number of members involved, active and retired, broken down by each institution identified; (e) what is the itemized list and the comprehensive range of all the pension services or activities that are processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the Public Service Pension Centre (PSPC) in Shediac, New Brunswick; (f) what is the itemized list of all the pension services or activities that are not, in whole or in part, processed, handled, administered, managed, or delivered by the PSPC, but that are reliant, in whole or in part, on compensation advisors outside of the PSPC in Shediac and that are reliant on compensation advisors within institutions specified in (d); (g) what are the detailed rationales for each item in (f); (h) what is the complete list of all government institutions that are either excluded, in whole or in part, from having any other separate arrangement apart from the Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, with the number of members affected, active and retired, broken down by each institution identified; (i) what are the detailed rationales for each item in (h); (j) what are the details of all framework documentation and Treasury Board Submissions (TB-Subs) related to the PWGSC Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative project life cycle, including, but not limited to, (i) business case, (ii) project charter, (iii) work plans, (iv) roadmap, (v) project complexity and risk assessment, (vi) projected schedule and timeline, (vii) projected budget tables, (viii) projected costing tables, (ix) inception/definition phase, (x) identification phase (initiation, feasibility, analysis, close out), (xi) delivery phase (planning, design, implementation, close out), (xii) preliminary project approval, (xiii) effective project approval (EPA); (k) what are the details of all documentation after EPA of question (j), including, but not limited to, (i) on-going readiness assessment reports, (ii) internal PWGSC audits, reviews, and reporting, (iii) Treasury Board audits, reviews, and reporting, (iv) external audits, reviews, and reporting from professional services providers and consulting firms, (v) subsequent TB-Subs modifications, amendments, and changes; (l) what are the actual costs and funding sources for the Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iv) institutions specified in (d) for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (m) what are the actual budgetary and cost impacts from the perspective and standpoint of each affected institution specified in (d) related to the implementation of the Transformation of Pension Administration Initiative, broken down by (i) each fiscal year from 2006 to date, at period (P-9) and (P-12), (ii) projects for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12), (iii) service for each fiscal year from 2006 year-to-date at period (P-9) and (P-12); (n) what are the details of all PWGSC prequel documentation prior to, preceding, and leading to and from the earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), including, but not limited to (i) all scenarios, reports, analysis with projected projects budgets, (ii) briefing notes to ministers and deputy heads, (iii) budget and costs broken down by each fiscal year between earliest attempt up to the initiation of the project life cycle process defined in (j), (iv) funding sources related specifically to the carrying out of the prequel phase exercise?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 925--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With respect to workforce adjustments since 2012: (a) how many employees received (i) pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus period, (ii) a transition support measure, (iii) an education allowance, (iv) retention payment or other payment as a result of an alternative delivery initiative under a work force adjustment agreement, (v) a lump sum payment under the Directive on Career Transition for Executives; and (b) what was the total amount spent on (i) pay in lieu of unfulfilled surplus periods, (ii) transition support measures, (iii) education allowances, (iv) retention payments or other payments as a result of an alternative delivery initiative under a work force adjustment agreement, (v) lump sum payments under the Directive on Career Transition for Executives?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 926--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to payments in lieu of taxes regarding national historic sites as designated by Parks Canada: from 2009 to date, what amounts have been granted by the department of Public Works and Government Services to each taxing authority, broken down by (i) historic site, (ii) year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 927--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to “nudge” policies discussed in Policy Horizons Canada, March 2012, ISBN number: PH4-134/2012E-PDF, 978-1-100-21668-3: (a) has the government communicated about nudge policies with other countries that use such policies and, if so, which countries; (b) has the government produced any analysis of them and, if so, what is the (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) department, (iv) author, (v) record number of those documents; (c) has the government implemented or tested these policies and, if so, (i) how, (ii) where, (iii) by whom, (iv) what were the results; and (d) if the government has not implemented or tested these policies, what was the rationale for that decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 928--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to federal taxes, including tariffs, service charges and fees: since 2005, (a) in which instance was there an increase, a new imposition or the elimination of a credit or benefit, broken down by (i) the particular tax, tariff, charge, fee or credit, (ii) the rate or amount, (iii) the date it took effect, (iv) the revenue it has generated, (v) the department that made the change; and (b) what is the annual total of revenue generated by each of the changes in (a), broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 929--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the role of Canadian diplomatic personnel in respect to the operations of Canadian extractive companies outside Canada: (a) what is this role; (b) what policies, guidelines, and directives govern this role; (c) for each of the policies, guidelines, and directives in (b), (i) when was it enacted, (ii) by whom was it enacted, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) has its objective been met, (v) how does the government determine whether its objective has been met, (vi) how was it communicated to Canadian diplomatic personnel, (vii) what former policy, guideline, or directive did it replace or modify; (d) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel support the operations of Canadian extractive companies; (e) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel facilitate the establishment of new operations, projects, or facilities by Canadian extractive companies; (f) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel intervene in interactions between Canadian extractive companies and (i) local governments, (ii) local law enforcement, (iii) local civil society, (iv) local residents; (g) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to ensure compliance by Canadian extractive companies with (i) local laws and regulations, (ii) Canadian laws and regulations, (iii) international laws and regulations, (iv) local standards regarding human rights, (v) Canadian standards regarding human rights, (vi) international standards regarding human rights, (vii) local standards regarding environmental protection, (viii) Canadian standards regarding environmental protection, (ix) international standards regarding environmental protection; (h) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to reduce resistance to the operations of Canadian extractive companies on the part of (i) local governments, (ii) local civil society, (iii) local residents; (i) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel help Canadian extractive companies reduce resistance to their operations on the part of (i) local governments, (ii) local civil society, (iii) local residents; (j) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to facilitate the operations of Canadian extractive companies by advocating for changes to local laws or regulations; (k) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to facilitate the operations of Canadian extractive companies by advocating against changes to local laws or regulations; (l) based on what factors do Canadian diplomatic missions evaluate requests from extractive companies for assistance or services, including services offered as part of the Global Markets Action Plan; (m) for each of the last five years, broken down by country where the diplomatic mission is located, how many requests for assistance or services have Canadian diplomatic missions received from Canadian extractive companies; (n) for each request in (m), (i) what company made the request, (ii) what assistance or service was sought by the company, (iii) what assistance or service was provided to the company, (iv) who evaluated the request, (v) if the request was not granted, on what grounds was it not granted, (vi) who provided the assistance or service, (vii) what was the cost of providing the assistance or service, (viii) what was the objective of providing the assistance or service, (ix) in what way was that objective achieved; (o) in what circumstances do Canadian diplomatic missions provide assistance or services, including services offered as part of the Global Markets Action Plan, to an extractive company without a request from that company; (p) for each of the last five years, broken down by country where the diplomatic mission is located, (i) what companies have received assistance or services from a Canadian diplomatic mission without making a request, (ii) what was the nature of that assistance or service, (iii) who made the decision to provide the assistance or service, (iv) who provided the assistance or service, (v) what was the cost of providing the assistance or service, (vi) what was the objective of providing the assistance or service, (vii) in what way was that objective achieved; (q) for each of the last five years, broken down by country, in what legal proceedings outside Canada involving Canadian extractive companies has Canada intervened; (r) for each intervention in (q), (i) what was the nature of the intervention, (ii) what was the objective of the intervention, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to intervene, (v) who carried out the intervention, (vi) what outside counsel was retained, (vii) what is the breakdown of the cost of the intervention, (viii) what are the access or control numbers of any legal filings made by Canada; (s) based on what criteria do Canadian diplomatic personnel determine whether a Canadian extractive company is complying with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards, particularly those standards set out in November 2014 in Doing Business the Canadian Way: A Strategy to Advance CSR in Canada’s Extractive Sector Abroad; (t) how frequently do Canadian diplomatic personnel evaluate the compliance of Canadian companies with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (u) what action do Canadian diplomatic personnel take when a company is found not to comply with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (v) for each of the last five years, broken down by country in which the diplomatic mission is located, what extractive companies have been deemed in non-compliance with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (w) for each company in (v), what action has been taken by Canadian diplomatic personnel to address the non-compliance; (x) what training do Canadian diplomatic personnel receive to ensure that they can advise and monitor Canadian extractive companies with respect to corporate social responsibility; (y) what assistance or services have Canadian diplomatic personnel provided to (i) Tahoe Resources in Guatemala, (ii) Nevsun Resources in Eritrea, (iii) Fortuna Silver in Mexico, (iv) Excellon Resources in Mexico, (v) IAMGOLD in Ecuador, (vi) Cornerstone Capital Resources in Ecuador, (vii) Kinross Gold Corporation in Ecuador, (viii) Lundin Mining in Ecuador, (ix) Barrick Gold in Chile, (x) Goldcorp in Chile, (xi) Yamana Gold in Argentina, (xii) Barrick Gold in Peru, (xiii) Candente Copper in Peru, (xiv) Bear Creek Mining in Peru, (xv) HudBay Minerals in Peru, (xvi) Eldorado Gold in Greece, (xvii) Esperanza Resources in Mexico, (xviii) TVI Pacific in the Philippines, (xix) Infinito Gold in Costa Rica, (xx) Blackfire Exploration in Mexico, (xxi) Skye Resources in Guatemala, (xxii) Glamis Gold in Guatemala; (z) for each instance in (y) of providing assistance or service, (i) what was the cost, (ii) what was the objective, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to provide the assistance or service, (v) who provided the assistance or service; (aa) what lobbying or advocacy activities have Canadian diplomatic personnel undertaken with respect to (i) laws relating to the extractive sector in Guatemala, including Decree 22-2014, (ii) laws relating to the extractive sector in Ecuador, including Ley Orgánica Reformatoria a la Ley de Minería, a la Ley Reformatoria para la Equidad Tributaria en el Ecuador y a la Ley Orgánica de Régimen Tributario Interno in Ecuador, (iii) laws relating to the extractive sector in Honduras, including amendments to the Honduran General Mining Law; and (bb) for each instance of lobbying or advocacy in (aa), (i) what was the cost, (ii) what was the objective, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to engage in lobbying or advocacy, (v) who carried out the lobbying or advocacy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 930--
Mr. Robert Chisholm:
With regard to Employment Insurance: (a) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Employment Insurance Commission for each year from 2010 to the present; (b) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees for each year from 2010 to 2013 inclusively; (c) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by Employment Insurance Umpires for each year from 2010 to 2013 inclusively; (d) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Social Security Tribunal in 2013 and 2014; (e) how much money has the government spent on the class-action court case regarding women who were denied sickness benefits while on parental leave; (f) how many Justice Department lawyers have been working on the class-action court case; and (g) what was the average cost for an appeal to be considered by the Employment Insurance Commission, the Board of Referees, and an Employment Insurance Umpire?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 931--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada: (a) what specific action has the government taken since January 2013 to ensure the sufficiency of the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) to provide a reasonable quality of life for each recipient, specifically, (i) what updates to the GIS have accounted for the rising cost of food, (ii) what GIS alterations have been made to increase access to non-insured prescription and non-prescription medications for low-income seniors, (iii) what GIS alterations have been considered for low-income senior homeowners and renters to offset housing costs; (b) what are the details of the government’s promise to begin automatic enrollment for seniors in the GIS program, specifically, (i) the number of calls made to Service Canada about the program, (ii) the dates when these calls were made, (iii) the number of people auto-enrolled, (iv) the number of people still to be auto-enrolled, (v) the number of calls from citizens with questions regarding auto-enrollment at Service Canada, (vi) the most common complaint received by Service Canada, (vii) details on how the auto-enrollment program was rolled out across Canada; and (c) what are the details of the government’s proactive GIS enrollment program, specifically, (i) the number of calls made to Service Canada about the program, (ii) the dates when these calls were made, (iii) the number of people enrolled through the program, (iv) the number of people still to be auto-enrolled, (v) the number of calls from citizens with questions regarding auto-enrollment at Service Canada, (vi) the most common complaint received by Service Canada, (vii) details on how the proactive enrollment program was rolled out across Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 933--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada, since January 2013, in the campaign to combat elder abuse: (a) what is the total amount spent, further broken down by each category of spending; (b) in which ridings was the money spent; and (c) what has been the observable change in the number of elders being abused?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 934--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS) in fiscal year 2013-2014: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each of the following components of the FTCS, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Aboriginals of Canada; and (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question no 768 --
L'hon. Scott Brison:
En ce qui concerne les déplacements de députés et de sénateurs qui ne sont pas ministres, ministres d’État ou secrétaires parlementaires payés par les ministères et les organismes: depuis 2010-2011 inclusivement, a) combien a coûté chaque déplacement; b) combien chaque déplacement a-t-il coûté au titre (i) du transport, (ii) de l’hébergement, (iii) des repas et faux frais, (iv) des cadeaux; c) quelle était la raison du déplacement; d) comment s’appelait le parlementaire bénéficiaire du déplacement; e) quel était l’itinéraire du déplacement; f) le parlementaire était-il accompagné par des employés et, si oui, combien a coûté le déplacement de chacun d’entre-eux au titre (i) du transport, (ii) de l’hébergement, (iii) des repas et faux frais, (iv) des cadeaux; g) le déplacement a-t-il fait l’objet d’un communiqué et, si oui, quel est (i) la date, (ii) le titre, (iii) le numéro de dossier du communiqué?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 769 --
L'hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
En ce qui concerne le Fonds de lutte contre les activités des gangs de jeunes, dont le lancement a été annoncé le 21 février 2012: a) combien d’argent a été dépensé; b) quels organismes ont reçu des fonds; c) pour chaque octroi de fonds (i) combien y a-t-il eu de participants, (ii) combien de personnes devraient participer tout au long du programme, (iii) où se trouve le programme, (iv) quelle est la population estimée à risque dans chaque ville ou municipalité concernée, (v) combien d’argent le projet a-t-il reçu?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 770 --
M. Emmanuel Dubourg:
En ce qui concerne le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor: a) la Directive sur le gouvernement ouvert du 9 octobre 2014 s’applique-t-elle aux tableaux produits par les ministères, organismes ou sociétés d’État en réponse aux questions écrites qui proviennent de députés ou de sénateurs et qui sont inscrites au Feuilleton; b) dans la négative, (i) pourquoi la Directive ne s’applique-t-elle pas, (ii) qui en a décidé ainsi, (iii) quand cette décision a-t-elle été prise; c) quel est le titre et le numéro de dossier de tous les documents, notamment les dossiers et les notes d’information, créés ou détenus par le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor et le Bureau du Conseil privé concernant l’application de la Directive sur le gouvernement ouvert dans le cas des réponses du gouvernement aux questions écrites qui proviennent des députés ou des sénateurs et qui sont inscrites au Feuilleton?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 771 --
M. Emmanuel Dubourg:
En ce qui concerne les aéronefs privés loués ou nolisés à l’usage de ministres et de secrétaires parlementaires depuis le 1er janvier 2010: a) combien a coûté la location ou le nolisement de chaque vol; b) quelle était la liste des passagers de chaque vol; c) quel était l’objectif du déplacement; d) quel était l’itinéraire du déplacement; e) le déplacement a-t-il fait l’objet d’un communiqué et, si oui, quel est (i) la date, (ii) le titre, (iii) le numéro de dossier du communiqué?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 772 --
M. Emmanuel Dubourg:
En ce qui concerne Passeport Canada: combien a-t-on reçu de demandes de passeport à chaque année depuis 2006 inclusivement, (i) dans chaque centre de service en personne, (ii) dans chaque centre de Service Canada servant d’agent réceptionnaire, (iii) dans chaque bureau de poste servant d’agent réceptionnaire, (iv) par courrier?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 774 --
L'hon. Gerry Byrne:
En ce qui concerne les lois, les règlements, les politiques et les pratiques régissant le ministère des Pêches et des Océans relativement à la délivrance et à l’administration des permis de pêche commerciale et des décisions concernant l’allocation des ressources halieutiques: a) comment définit-on les expressions anglaises (i) « commercial fishing licence », (ii) « commercial fishing permit »; b) quelle distinction existe-t-il entre les expressions anglaises « commercial fishing licence » et « commercial fishing permit » sur le plan (i) des droits et des responsabilités du pêcheur qui est détenteur d’une « commercial fishing licence » et d’un « commercial fishing permit », respectivement, (ii) des droits et des responsabilités du Ministre relativement à la politique d’allocation des ressources; c) comment définit-on le principe du « dernier entré, premier sorti » (DEPS); d) à quelle fréquence le principe du DEPS a-t-il été appliqué pour déterminer l’allocation des quotas annuels aux détenteurs soit de « commercial fishing licence » soit de « commercial fishing permit » qui ont connu chaque année une diminution de leur total de prises admissibles, ventilée par (i) année, (ii) chacune des catégories de pêche réglementée dans l’une ou l’autre des zones de gestion des pêches de chaque zone de stocks de pêche dans les régions de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, du golfe, des Maritimes et du Québec du ministère des Pêches et des Océans, à leur tour ventilés selon (iii) les espèces capturées, (iv) chacune des zones de gestion des pêches à l’intérieur de la zone de stock d’espèces au cours des dix dernières années, ce qui comprend le total des niveaux de quota pour chaque espèce et pour chaque zone de gestion des pêches à l’intérieur de chaque zone de stock, pour chacune des années; e) pour chacune des occurrences dont il est fait état en d), pour chacune des dix dernières années décrites, quel était le nombre total de détenteurs de « fishing licence » et « fishing permit » qui ont été directement touchés par une diminution de quota année après année et qui ont été assujettis à l’application de la politique du DEPS, ventilé par (i) espèce, (ii) zone de gestion des pêches à l’intérieur de chaque zone de stocks de pêche?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 778 --
L'hon. Carolyn Bennett:
En ce qui concerne l’application de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information: a) quelles sont les dates et quels sont les titres et numéros de référence de toutes les directives, ordonnances et de tous les mémoires, rapports ou autres documents traitant des questions de sécurité relatives à la publication de documents découlant de demandes en vertu de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information en format numérique et sur média numérique; b) quelles sont les dates et quels sont les titres et numéros de référence de toutes les directives, ordonnances et de tous les mémoires, rapports ou autres documents dans lesquels le Bureau du Conseil privé a présenté ou promulgué ses politiques concernant la production ou la non-production de documents publiés à la suite de demandes en vertu de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information en format numérique ou sur média numérique?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 779 --
Mme Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
En ce qui concerne le bateau Kathryn Spirit amarré à Beauharnois (Québec): a) Environnement Canada ou Transport Canada a-t-il reçu un plan de remorquage ou une demande de certificat environnemental de la part du propriétaire du bateau et, dans l'affirmative, quand a-t-il reçu ce plan; b) selon les informations que possèdent le gouvernement, Reciclajes Ecologicos Maritimos est-il le propriétaire du bateau; c) si la réponse à b) est non, qui est le propriétaire du bateau, selon les informations que possèdent le gouvernement; d) le gouvernement a-t-il analysé si les lois fédérales permettent le démantèlement du bateau à l’endroit où il est amarré et, dans l’affirmative, quels sont les détails de cette analyse; e) le gouvernement a-t-il analysé les risques de pollution associés au démantèlement du bateau et, dans l’affirmative, quels sont les détails de cette analyse; f) selon les informations que possèdent le gouvernement, le bateau contient-il des matières toxiques et, dans l’affirmative, lesquelles; g) existe-t-il un port équipé pour le démantèlement d’un tel bateau au Canada et, dans l'affirmative, où est-il situé; h) le gouvernement a-t-il analysé si les lois fédérales lui permettent de (i) saisir le bateau, (ii) remorquer le bateau dans un endroit sécuritaire et, dans l’affirmative, quels sont les détails de cette analyse; i) le gouvernement a-t-il l’intention de (i) saisir le bateau, (ii) remorquer le bateau dans un endroit sécuritaire; j) le gouvernement a-t-il procédé à une analyse pour démanteler le bateau dans le port de Salaberry-de-Valleyfield ou dans un autre port au pays et, dans l'affirmative, a-t-il évalué les coûts associés à une telle opération?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 780 --
Mme Judy Foote:
En ce qui concerne les dépenses gouvernementales consacrées à des billets pour des événements sportifs: depuis le 1er janvier 2013, quels ont été (i) la date, (ii) le lieu, (iii) le prix du billet, (iv) l’identité des personnes ayant utilisé les billets, (v) la nature de l’événement sportif pour ce qui est de tous les billets d’événement sportif achetés par un ministère, un organisme ou une société d’État, ou par une personne agissant au nom d’un ministère, d’un organisme ou d’une société d’État, et ce, que l’événement ait eu lieu au Canada ou à l’extérieur du Canada?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 782 --
M. Scott Simms:
En ce qui concerne la publicité du gouvernement depuis le 1er septembre 2012: a) quelles sont les sommes qui ont été consacrées aux panneaux publicitaires, à la publicité et à d’autres campagnes d’information, ventilées par i) date de parution, ii) coûts, iii) sujet, iv) analyse de l’efficacité des campagnes de publicité, si elle a été effectuée et, le cas échéant, quels en sont les détails, v) média, notamment la publication ou le service médiatique et le type de média utilisé, vi) objet, vii) durée de chaque campagne (y compris celles qui sont en cours), viii) public-cible, ix) public estimé; b) quels sont les détails de tous les dossiers de correspondance connexe concernant les panneaux publicitaires, la publicité et les autres campagnes d’information susmentionnés, ventilés par (i) numéro de dossier, (ii) type de correspondance ou de dossier, (iii) sujet, (iv) date, (v) objet, (vi) expéditeur, (vii) destinataire, (viii) fonctionnaire concerné ou ayant reçu une copie?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 783 --
L'hon. Carolyn Bennett:
En ce qui concerne l’encéphalopathie des cervidés (EC), l’encéphalopathie spongiforme transmissible (EST) chez les cerfs mulets, les cerfs de Virginie, les wapitis et les orignaux: a) depuis 2006, quel est le total du financement public alloué ou versé à la recherche sur ces maladies, ventilé (i) par ministère ou organisme, (ii) par année; b) quels documents ont été produits par les ministères ou les organismes concernant les conséquences, actuelles ou futures, de l’EC sur la santé, l’économie ou l’environnement, avec, pour chaque document, les indications suivantes, (i) la date, (ii) le ministère ou l’organisme auteur; c) quels documents ont été produits par les ministères ou les organismes sur l’EC de façon générale, avec, pour chaque document, les indications suivantes (i) la date, (ii) le ministère ou l’organisme auteur; d) pour chaque année depuis 2006, quelles mesures ont été prises par le gouvernement pour lutter contre la propagation de l’EC au Canada, en précisant pour chaque mesure (i) le ministère ou l’organisme responsable, (ii) la date à laquelle elle a été mise en œuvre, (iii) la durée, (iv) l’objectif, (v) l’atteinte ou non des objectifs; e) quelles stratégies et quels programmes sont actuellement en place ou en cours d’élaboration pour lutter contre la propagation éventuelle de l’EC chez les animaux qui ne sont pas, pour le moment, vulnérables à la maladie, et chez les humains; f) depuis 2006, quelles réunions ou consultations ont été tenues avec les gouvernements provinciaux ou territoriaux au sujet de l’EC et quels documents ou quelles décisions en ont découlé, en précisant (i) le ministère ou l’organisme fédéral responsable à l’origine de l’initiative, (ii) la date à laquelle le document a été produit ou la décision a été prise; g) depuis 2006, quelles consultations, réunions ou campagnes de sensibilisation les ministères ou organismes fédéraux ont-ils tenues avec des gouvernements, des organisations ou des représentants inuits, métis ou des Premières Nations, en précisant (i) la date où les échanges ont eu lieu, (ii) le nom des participants, (iii) les sujets discutés, (iv) les conclusions, (v) les documents produits à la suite des échanges; h) depuis 2006, quelles mesures le gouvernement a-t-il mises en place pour surveiller la propagation de l’EC, en précisant (i) le ministère ou l’organisme à l’origine de chaque mesure, (ii) la date à laquelle chaque mesure a été mise en œuvre, (iii) la durée de chaque mesure; i) quelles mesures les ministères ou organismes fédéraux envisagent-ils de prendre actuellement en conséquence de l’EC ou relativement à celle-ci?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 784 --
M. Sean Casey:
En ce qui concerne la Loi améliorant la Nouvelle Charte des anciens combattants: de combien a augmenté en moyenne le paiement versé (i) aux 2717 anciens combattants admis à une majoration de l’allocation pour perte de revenus, (ii) aux 590 anciens combattants admis à une majoration de l’allocation pour déficience permanente, (iii) aux 202 anciens combattants admis à l’allocation d’incapacité exceptionnelle?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 786 --
M. Sean Casey:
En ce qui concerne les prestations offertes par le gouvernement en aide aux frais de funérailles et d’inhumation: a) quel est le montant maximal offert dans le cadre du Programme de frais de funérailles et d’inhumation pour les funérailles; b) comment le montant exprimé en a) se compare-t-il avec le maximum permis établi pour les membres de la GRC et des Forces canadiennes; c) pour être admissible au montant maximal offert dans le cadre du Programme de frais de funérailles et d’inhumation, à combien doit être évaluée la succession de l’ancien combattant; d) comment le montant exprimé en c) se compare-t-il avec l’évaluation des ressources établie dans le cas des membres de la GRC et des Forces canadiennes; e) combien de demandes d’aide aux frais d’inhumation ont été présentées pendant chaque exercice financier de 2006 à 2013; f) parmi les demandes en e), combien ont été acceptées; g) pour chaque demande en e), par exercice financier, quelles ont été les raisons du refus; h) combien de demandes au total ont été refusées pour chacune des raisons énoncées en g)?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 787 --
Mme Yvonne Jones:
En ce qui concerne la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu: à chacune des cinq dernières années d’imposition, a) combien et quel pourcentage des déclarations de revenus de déclarants de chaque province ou territoire a-t-on examinées, ventilées suivant que les déclarants habitent (i) dans une zone nordique visée par règlement aux fins de la déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées, (ii) dans une zone intermédiaire visée par règlement aux fins de la déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées, (iii) ailleurs que dans une zone nordique ou intermédiaire; b) combien et quel pourcentage des déclarations de revenus de déclarants de chaque province ou territoire a-t-on vérifiées, ventilées suivant que les déclarants habitent (i) dans une zone nordique visée par règlement aux fins de la déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées, (ii) dans une zone intermédiaire visée par règlement aux fins de la déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées, (iii) ailleurs que dans une zone nordique ou intermédiaire; c) combien et quel pourcentage des déclarations de revenus de déclarants de chaque province ou territoire a-t-on (i) examinées, (ii) vérifiées, ventilées suivant que les déclarants ont demandé une déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées ou n’en ont pas demandé; d) combien et quel pourcentage des déclarants de chaque province ou territoire se sont vu, après (i) examen, (ii) vérification, refuser leur demande de déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées, ventilés suivant qu’ils ont demandé une déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées dans une zone nordique visée par règlement ou dans une zone intermédiaire visée par règlement; e) combien et quel pourcentage des déclarants de chaque province ou territoire a-t-on priés, à l’égard de la déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées, de documenter le coût des billets d'avion aller-retour les plus économiques au moment du voyage, entre l'aéroport le plus proche de leur résidence et la ville désignée la plus proche, ventilés suivant qu’ils habitent (i) dans une zone nordique visée par règlement aux fins de la déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées, (ii) dans une zone intermédiaire visée par règlement aux fins de la déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées; f) combien et quel pourcentage des déclarants de chaque province ou territoire visés en e) ont, à l’égard de la déduction pour habitants des régions éloignées, informé l’Agence du revenu du Canada qu’ils ne pouvaient pas documenter le coût des billets d'avion aller-retour les plus économiques au moment du voyage, entre l'aéroport le plus proche de leur résidence et la ville désignée la plus proche; g) combien et quel pourcentage des déclarants de chaque province ou territoire visés en e) se sont vu refuser la déduction pour les habitants des régions éloignées parce qu’ils ne pouvaient pas documenter le coût des billets d'avion aller-retour les plus économiques au moment du voyage, entre l'aéroport le plus proche de leur résidence et la ville désignée la plus proche?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 788 --
Mme Yvonne Jones:
En ce qui concerne l’application de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu: a) quels sont les titres, dates et numéros de dossier des études ou évaluations qui ont porté ou qui portent actuellement sur la rentabilité de l’examen ou de la vérification des contribuables qui demandent la déduction pour les habitants de régions éloignées; b) quels sont les conclusions des études ou évaluations mentionnées en a); c) quels sont les titres, dates et numéros de dossier des études ou évaluations qui ont porté ou qui portent actuellement sur le fardeau administratif imposé aux contribuables qui demandent la déduction pour les habitants de régions éloignées; d) quels sont les conclusions des études ou évaluations mentionnées en c); e) quels sont les titres, dates et numéros de dossier des études ou évaluations qui ont porté ou qui portent actuellement sur le fardeau administratif imposé à l’Agence du revenu du Canada en ce qui a trait à l’administration de la déduction pour les habitants de régions éloignées; f) quelles sont les conclusions des études ou évaluations mentionnées en e)?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 789 --
L'hon. Ralph Goodale:
En ce qui concerne les partenariats public-privé impliquant Infrastructure Canada ou PPP Canada: depuis le 1er janvier 2006, pour chacun de ces projets, quels sont a) les détails du projet; b) le temps consacré à la conception du processus d’appel d’offres; c) la durée du processus d’appel d’offres à partir de la déclaration d’intérêt initiale jusqu’à la clôture; d) les coûts liés à la préparation d’une soumission pour les promoteurs?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 790 --
M. John Rafferty:
En ce qui concerne le ministère des Anciens Combattants : combien de clients ont été servis chaque année, de 2010 à 2014 inclusivement, dans chacun des bureaux du Ministère, y compris les neuf bureaux qui ont fermé récemment?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 793 --
Mme Carol Hughes:
En ce qui concerne les dépenses du gouvernement dans la circonscription d’Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, quel est le montant total des dépenses engagées entre l’exercice 2010-2011 et l’exercice en cours inclusivement, ventilées selon (i) la date de réception des fonds dans la circonscription, (ii) le montant en dollars, (iii) le programme dans le cadre duquel la dépense s’est faite, (iv) le ministère responsable, (v) le bénéficiaire désigné?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 794 --
M. Scott Simms:
En ce qui concerne les licences et permis délivrés par les ministères fédéraux liés à toute activité maritime et pouvant être utilisés dans les provinces de l’Atlantique ou dans leurs eaux: a) pour chaque licence ou permis délivré depuis 2009, (i) quelle était la date de délivrance, (ii) qui étaient les propriétaires ou les exploitants, (iii) à quelles conditions relatives à son utilisation, à sa conservation ou à son renouvellement la licence ou le permis a-t-il été délivré; b) pour chaque navire dont la licence a été suspendue ou rejetée ou n’a pas été renouvelée (i) à quelle date la licence a-t-elle été suspendue ou refusée, ou le renouvellement a-t-il été refusé, (ii) pour quels motifs, (iii) en vertu de quel pouvoir; c) quels sont les numéros de référence de tous les documents d’information du ministre ou de la correspondance ministérielle entre le gouvernement et les entités, ministères, entreprises, entrepreneurs ou particuliers concernant la suspension ou le rejet de la licence ou le refus de son renouvellement, ventilés par (i) ministre ou ministère, (ii) type de correspondance ou de dossier, (iii) date, (iv) objet, (v) origine, (vi) destination prévue, (vii) autres responsables concernés ou qui en ont reçu une copie; d) quelles sont les règles précises régissant la conservation ou le renouvellement d’une telle licence ou d’un tel permis; e) quelles sont toutes les règles, dossiers, et documents de correspondance liés à l’observation en mer et à l’observation à quai des titulaires de permis et utilisateurs, ventilés par (i) numéros de référence pertinents, (ii) entités, entreprises, entrepreneurs ou particuliers, (iii) ministre ou ministère, (iv) type de correspondance ou de fichier, (v) date, (vi) objet, (vii) origine, (viii) destination prévue, (ix) autres responsables concernés ou qui en ont reçu une copie, (x) base, ressource ou installation militaire, (xi) type d’activité ou de contrat; f) quelles sont les différences entre les conditions applicables aux permis dans différentes régions, zones ou provinces; g) quelles sont les règles pour ce qui est de garder ou de remettre à l’eau les poissons capturés à bord d’embarcations utilisées à des fins récréatives ou touristiques, ventilées par (i) province, (ii) nombre de titulaires de licences et de permis visés?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 796 --
Mme Joyce Murray:
En ce qui concerne la Force opérationnelle Libeccio des Forces armées canadiennes dans le cadre de l’opération Mobile: quels étaient a) les coûts total et supplémentaire de mars à octobre 2011, ventilés par mois; b) les coûts total et supplémentaire pour les (i) CF-18, (ii) CC-150, (iii) CC-130, (iv) CC-177, (v) CP-140;c) le nombre total d'heures de vol pour les (i) CF-18, (ii) CC-150, (iii) CC-130, (iv) CC-177, (v) CP-140; d) les coûts total et supplémentaire de toutes les ententes relatives à l’appui des bases (comme l’hébergement, les repas, l’équipement, les infrastructures, les services publics), y compris pour tout appui en nature; e) les coûts total et supplémentaire de tous les vols de déploiement, de ravitaillement et de redéploiement, incluant les vols de l’Aviation royale du Canada (ARC) et les vols nolisés; f) les munitions utilisées, ainsi que leurs coûts total et supplémentaire; g) les coûts total et supplémentaire liés au carburant livré par les pétroliers de l’ARC; h) les coûts total et supplémentaire de réparation et de révision; i) les coûts total et supplémentaire de toutes rémunération ou allocations spéciales accordées au personnel en déploiement; j) les coûts total et supplémentaire associés à l’indemnité de retour au domicile; k) les coûts total et supplémentaire associés au déploiement de réservistes de classe C; l) les coûts total et supplémentaire associés aux réservistes de classe B employés comme suppléants au Canada?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 797 --
Mme Joyce Murray:
En ce qui concerne l’opération IMPACT des Forces armées canadiennes: quels sont les chiffres estimés (pour la durée complète de l’opération, soit six mois) et les chiffres réels (à jour) relativement aux a) coûts complets et supplémentaires de la mission, ventilés par mois; b) coûts complets et supplémentaires rattachés aux (i) CC-130J, (ii) CC-177, (iii) CF-188, (iv) CP-140, (v) CC-150T; c) heures totales de vol des (i) CC-130J, (ii) CC-177, (iii) CF-188, (iv) CP-140, (v) CC-150T; d) coûts complets et supplémentaires de l’ensemble des ententes de soutien à la base (comme l’hébergement, les repas, l'équipement, les infrastructures, les services publics), y compris pour tout appui en nature; e) coûts complets et supplémentaires de tous les vols de déploiement, de ravitaillement et de redéploiement, incluant les vols de l’Aviation royale du Canada (ARC) et les vols nolisés; f) munitions (i) utilisées, (ii) qui seront utilisées, ainsi que les coûts complets et supplémentaires qui y sont rattachés; g) coûts complets et supplémentaires rattachés au carburant livré par les pétroliers de l’ARC; h) coûts complets et supplémentaires de réparation et de révision; i) coûts complets et supplémentaires pour toutes rémunération ou allocations spéciales accordées au personnel en déploiement; j) coûts complets et supplémentaires associés à l’indemnité de retour au domicile; k) coûts complets et supplémentaires associés au déploiement de réservistes de classe C; l) coûts complets et supplémentaires associés aux réservistes de classe B employés au Canada comme suppléants?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 798 --
M. Pierre Nantel:
En ce qui concerne le ministère du Patrimoine canadien: a) pour les données recueillies dans le Système de gestion de l’information relative aux subventions et contributions (SGISC), pour tous les volets des programmes du Ministère, quelle a été la durée de traitement des demandes de subvention et de contribution entre le moment où le programme accuse réception de la demande et le moment où le ministère prend une décision quant à la demande de financement, ventilées par volet de programme et par trimestre, pour les exercices 2011-2012 à 2014-2015 inclusivement; b) pour le comité exécutif du Ministère chargé de l’examen des résultats des données des délais de traitement recueillies dans le SGISC, (i) qui sont les membres de ce comité exécutif, (ii) à quelle fréquence se rencontre-t-il, (iii) quel est le budget affecté à son fonctionnement, (iv) quelles ont été ses recommandations au Cabinet de la Ministre, ventilées par trimestre pour les exercices 2011-2012 à 2014-2015 inclusivement, (v) quelles ont été ses recommandations aux sous-ministres, ventilées par trimestre pour les exercices 2011-2012 à 2014-2015 inclusivement, (vi) quelles ont été ses recommandations aux sous-ministres adjoints, ventilées par trimestre pour les exercices 2011-2012 à 2014-2015 inclusivement, (vii) quelles ont été ses recommandations aux directeurs-généraux, ventilées par trimestre pour les exercices 2011-2012 à 2014-2015 inclusivement, (viii) quelles ont été ses recommandations aux gestionnaires de programme, ventilées par trimestre pour les exercices 2011-2012 à 2014-2015 inclusivement?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 799 --
Mme Hélène Laverdière:
En ce qui concerne le Sommet sur la santé des mères, des nouveau-nés et des enfants (le Sommet) qui a eu lieu à Toronto du 28 au 30 mai 2014: a) qui au sein du ministère des Affaires étrangères, du Commerce et du Développement s’est chargé de l’organisation du Sommet; b) quel était le budget initial de l’événement, (i) le Sommet a-t-il dépassé son budget, (ii) si oui, quels ont été les dépassements de coûts, (iii) y a-t-il eu des dépenses imprévues; c) combien a coûté en tout le Sommet; d) combien a coûté la location du lieu (hôtel Fairmont Royal York); e) combien de chambres le gouvernement a-t-il réservées au Fairmont Royal York et à quel coût; f) combien de noms figuraient sur la liste d’invités finale et quels étaient ces noms; g) combien de fonctionnaires et d’employés du gouvernement ont assisté au Sommet et quel est leur nom; h) mis à part les employés du gouvernement, combien d’invités ont logé au Fairmont Royal York aux frais du gouvernement et quel est leur nom; i) le gouvernement a-t-il payé les frais de déplacement des visiteurs internationaux; j) comment a-t-on choisi le Fairmont Royal York comme lieu du Sommet, (i) à quelle date a-t-on communiqué avec l’hôtel pour la première fois au sujet du Sommet, (ii) à quelle date le contrat avec l’hôtel a-t-il été signé, (iii) les organisateurs du Sommet ont-ils contacté des établissements autres que le Fairmont Royal York et, si oui, combien; k) combien a totalisé le budget de sécurité; l) combien ont totalisé les frais de repas et d’accueil; m) le Sommet a-t-il été financé par des fonds dédiés à l’Initiative de Muskoka?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 804 --
L'hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
En ce qui concerne le déversement de la mine Mount Polley: a) est-ce que le ministère des Pêches et des Océans (MPO) ou Environnement Canada ont déposé des accusations concernant ce déversement, (i) dans l’affirmative, quel est le détail des accusations, (ii) dans la négative, pourquoi n’ont-ils rien fait; b) quel rôle le MPO et Environnement Canada jouent-ils dans l’enquête en cours menée par les agents de conservation de la Colombie-Britannique; c) le MPO et Environnement Canada sont-ils en train d’examiner le plan de remise en état élaboré par Imperial Metals Corporation, (i) dans l’affirmative, quelles conclusions tirent-ils d’un tel examen, (ii) dans la négative, pourquoi n’ont-ils rien fait; d) le gouvernement a-t-il obtenu l’accord des Secwepemc en ce qui a trait au processus d’enquête ou à l’examen du plan de remise en état; e) le gouvernement a-t-il fait une étude d’impact des déchets qui demeurent dans le ruisseau Hazeltine et le bassin hydrographique du lac Quesnel; f) pendant et après le processus de remise en état, comment le MPO et Environnement Canada s’assureront-ils qu’il n’y aura pas d’autres infractions à la Loi sur les pêches; g) comment le gouvernement surveille-t-il et fait-il respecter la conformité aux normes relatives aux pratiques exemplaires par Imperial Metals Corporation dans ses autres sites miniers; h) comment le gouvernement fédéral entend-il s’assurer de la mise en œuvre de contrôles supplémentaires pour empêcher les échappatoires dans la surveillance et l’application des règlements par la province; i) le gouvernement va-t-il examiner toute proposition qui lui sera soumise concernant (i) les réparations des installations de stockage des résidus miniers, (ii) la reprise des activités à la mine; j) comment le gouvernement compte-t-il s’assurer que les intérêts des Premières Nations touchées seront protégés avant la reprise de quelque activité que ce soit; k) quelles mesures le gouvernement envisage-t-il de prendre pour s’assurer que les droits des Premières Nations sont respectés; l) quels sont les numéros de suivi interne de l’ensemble des documents, communications et notes d’information concernant le déversement de Mount Polley à l’intention des hauts fonctionnaires ministériels au niveau de directeur général régional et aux niveaux supérieurs, tant au MPO qu’à Environnement Canada?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 805 --
L'hon. Mark Eyking:
En ce qui concerne la Société d’expansion du Cap Breton (SECB): pour chaque année de 2005 à 2014 inclusivement, a) quelle somme la SECB a-t-elle consacrée aux infrastructures; b) quels étaient tous les projets de la SECB, y compris, sans s’y limiter, le nom des projets, leur objectif et leur coût?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 806 --
L'hon. Mark Eyking:
En ce qui concerne les fonctionnaires fédéraux en Nouvelle-Écosse: pour chaque année à partir de 2005 jusqu’à 2013 inclusivement et pour chacun des ministères, combien de fonctionnaires travaillaient dans (i) la municipalité régionale de Cap-Breton, (ii) le comté de Victoria, (iii) le comté d’Inverness, (iv) le comté de Richmond?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 807 --
M. Brian Masse:
En ce qui concerne l'Agence fédérale de développement économique pour le Sud de l'Ontario (FedDev Ontario), à combien s’élèvent les fonds que le gouvernement a approuvés et distribués dans chacune des 37 divisions de recensement à chaque année depuis 2009?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 808 --
Mme Sadia Groguhé:
En ce qui concerne la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi: a) combien d’argent chaque province et territoire reçoit-il en transferts fédéraux dans le cadre du Fonds du Canada pour la création d’emplois pour l’exercice en cours, et dans chacun des exercices ultérieurs jusqu’à ce que le Fonds soit entièrement mis en œuvre; b) combien d’argent chaque province et territoire a-t-il reçu en transferts fédéraux au titre des ententes relatives au marché du travail en 2013-2014; c) à combien s’élève ou devrait s’élever la part fédérale de la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi à ce jour et dans chacun des exercices à venir jusqu’à ce que le programme soit entièrement mis en œuvre; d) la contribution fédérale à la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi provient-elle des 40 % du Fonds du Canada pour la création d’emplois destinés à la formation axée sur les besoins des employeurs; e) si la part fédérale de la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi ne provient pas du Fonds du Canada pour la création d’emplois, de quelle enveloppe de programme provient-elle; f) depuis le début de l’exercice 2014-2015, quel est le montant exact que le gouvernement a consacré à la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi, ventilé par province et territoire; g) depuis le début de l’exercice 2014-2015, quel est le montant tiré du Fonds du Canada pour la création d’emplois que chaque province et territoire a consacré à la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi; h) depuis le début de l’exercice 2014-2015, quel est le montant que les employeurs ont consacré à la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi, ventilé par province et territoire; i) quel est le montant de la contribution prévue des employeurs à la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi dans chacun des exercices à venir, jusqu’à ce que le programme soit entièrement mis en œuvre; j) combien d’entreprises devraient avoir la possibilité de fournir une « contribution en nature » en remplacement de leur part de la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi, une fois le programme entièrement mis en œuvre; k) quelles contributions « en nature » de la part de l’employeur sont admissibles aux fins de la participation à la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi; l) depuis le début de l’exercice 2014-2015, combien de Canadiens ont reçu une formation appuyée par la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi dans chaque province et territoire; m) combien de Canadiens recevront une formation appuyée par la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi dans chacun des exercices jusqu’à sa mise en œuvre intégrale; n) depuis le début de l’exercice 2014-2015, dans quels métiers des Canadiens ont-ils reçu une formation appuyée par la subvention canadienne pour l’emploi (suivant la Classification nationale des professions)?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 811 --
L'hon. Geoff Regan:
En ce qui concerne les dossiers du gouvernement : quels sont les renseignements, systèmes de gestion des actifs, systèmes de suivi de la correspondance, registres de télécommunication, registres de véhicules et toute autre forme de dossiers qui a) sont tenus, ventilés par (i) ministère, (ii) type de dossier, (iii) durée de conservation, (iv) fréquence de mise à jour, (v) date du plus ancien dossier conservé, (vi) méthode d’élimination, (vii) système de numérotation de dossiers ou autre système d’accès aux dossiers, (viii) liste des employés (par titre), des entrepreneurs ou des autres personnes ayant accès aux dossiers, (ix) méthodes de suivi des demandes d’accès aux dossiers; b) ne sont pas tenus, incluant les détails concernant ce qui n'a pas été tenu et pourquoi?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 812 --
L'hon. Irwin Cotler:
En ce qui concerne les changements annoncés en octobre 2014 au Programme des aides familiaux (le Programme), anciennement le Programme des aides familiaux résidants: a) quels personnes, organisations, organismes et autres gouvernements le gouvernement a-t-il consultés pour l’élaboration des changements; b) à quel moment les consultations énoncées en a) ont-elles eu lieu; c) de quelle façon chacune des consultations énoncées en a) ont-elles eu lieu; d) qui, au sein du gouvernement, a mené chacune des consultations énoncées en a); e) pour les anciens participants et les participants actuels du Programme, (i) de quelle façon était-il possible de contribuer aux consultations, (ii) comment le gouvernement s’y est-il pris pour les informer de la possibilité de contribuer aux consultations, (iii) à quelles dates le gouvernement les a-t-il informés de la possibilité de contribuer aux consultations; f) pour les autres personnes, organisations, organismes et autres gouvernements, (i) comment le gouvernement s’y est-il pris pour les informer de la possibilité de contribuer aux consultations, (ii) à quelles dates le gouvernement les a-t-il informés de la possibilité de contribuer aux consultations; g) quels résultats des consultations énoncées en a) ont-ils été présentés au ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration; h) de quelle façon les résultats des consultations énoncées en a) ont-ils été présentés au ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration; i) à quelles dates les résultats des consultations énoncées en a) ont-ils été présentés au ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration; j) selon quels critères les données obtenues par la voie des consultations énoncées en a) ont-elles été évaluées par le gouvernement; k) quels sont les études, les rapports, les enquêtes et les autres documents qui ont été consultés par le gouvernement; l) sur quels facteurs le gouvernement s’est-il fondé pour établir à 2 750 le plafond des demandeurs de résidence permanente par la voie d’accès de la garde d’enfants; m) sur quels facteurs le gouvernement s’est-il fondé pour établir à 2 750 le plafond des demandeurs de résidence permanente par la voie d’accès des personnes ayant des besoins médicaux élevés; n) combien y a-t-il eu de demandeurs principaux de résidence permanente attribuables au Programme pour chacune des dix dernières années; o) les plafonds énoncés en l) et en m) visent-ils seulement le nombre de nouvelles demandes acceptées par le gouvernement chaque année ou plutôt le nombre total de demandes traitées chaque année; p) répartis par province et territoire, combien de résidants temporaires se trouvent-ils actuellement au Canada grâce au Programme; q) répartis par province et territoire, combien de résidants temporaires, pour chacune des dix dernières années, se sont-ils trouvés au Canada grâce au Programme; r) selon le gouvernement, combien devrait-on compter au Canada de résidants temporaires attribuables au Programme pour chacune des dix prochaines années; s) quelles études le gouvernement a-t-il réalisées ou consultées pour déterminer si le nombre de résidents temporaires au Canada attribuables au Programme est susceptible de changer au cours des prochaines années; t) quelles sont les conclusions des études énoncées en s); u) pour chacune des dix dernières années et dans le cadre du Programme, combien de demandes de résidence permanente, en excluant les conjoints et les personnes à charge, ont-elles été (i) présentées, (ii) acceptées, (iii) refusées; v) si le nombre de demandeurs principaux de résidence permanente dépasse le plafond de 2 750 pour l’une ou l’autre des catégories pour une année donnée, comment le gouvernement établira-t-il les demandes qu'il choisira d'examiner; w) qui prendra la décision établie en v); x) en fonction de quels facteurs la décision énoncée en v) est-elle prise; y) dans le cadre du Programme, combien de demandes de résidence permanente sont-elles actuellement traitées, en excluant les conjoints et les personnes à charge; z) dans le cadre du Programme, combien de demandes de résidence permanente, en excluant les conjoints et les personnes à charge, le gouvernement a-t-il l’intention de traiter pour chacune des cinq prochaines années; aa) de quelle façon le gouvernement réduira-t-il l’arriéré des demandes de résidence permanente dans le cadre du Programme; bb) d’ici quelle date le gouvernement a-t-il l’intention de réduire l’arriéré des demandes énoncé en aa); cc) combien de demandes doivent-elles être traitées avant que le gouvernement ne considère que l’arriéré énoncé en aa) est réduit; dd) à quel moment le délai de six mois imposé au traitement des demandes présentées dans le cadre du Programme prendra-t-il effet; ee) quelles répercussions le délai de six mois énoncé en dd) aura-t-il sur les demandes en cours au moment où le délai entrera en vigueur; ff) quelles mesures seront-elles mises en œuvre pour veiller à ce que les demandes de résidence permanente soient traitées à l’intérieur de six mois; gg) à quels recours les demandeurs auront-ils accès si leur demande n’est pas traitée à l’intérieur de six mois; hh) de quelle façon les demandes qui ne sont pas encore traitées au bout de six mois seront-elles gérées par le gouvernement; ii) le délai de six mois s’appliquera-t-il sans égard au (i) nombre de personnes à charge, (ii) pays d’origine des demandeurs principaux, des conjoints ou des personnes à charge; jj) quelles mesures seront-elles instaurées pour offrir des recours aux résidants temporaires qui se trouvent au Canada grâce au Programme et qui ont le sentiment d’être exploités ou traités de façon inappropriée par leur employeur, que l’aide vive ou non avec son employeur; kk) quels changements sont-ils ou seront-ils apportés aux critères utilisés pour évaluer les demandes de résidence permanente dans le cadre du Programme; ll) quelles directives ont été ou seront émises aux agents des visas; mm) à quel moment les directives énoncées en ll) prendront-elles effet; nn) de quelle façon les demandeurs dont la demande est en traitement seront-ils touchés par les changements?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 813 --
L'hon. Irwin Cotler:
En ce qui concerne les demandeurs de résidence permanente au Canada en tant qu’enfants à charge de résidents canadiens: a) réparties par pays d’origine et année de demande, pour chacune des dix dernières années, combien de demandes de résidence permanente Citoyenneté et Immigration Canada (CIC) a-t-il reçues d’enfants à charge de citoyens canadiens; b) réparties par pays d’origine et année de demande, combien de demandes en a), (i) ont-elles été acceptées, (ii) ont-elles été refusées, (iii) sont toujours en traitement; c) réparties par pays d’origine et année de demande, pour chacune des dix dernières années, combien de demandes de résidence permanente CIC a-t-il reçues d’enfants à charge de résidents permanents du Canada non citoyens, à l’exclusion du Programme des aides familiaux résidants (PAFR); d) réparties par pays d’origine et année de demande, combien de demandes en c), (i) ont-elles été acceptées, (ii) ont-elles été refusées, (iii) sont toujours en traitement; e) réparties par pays d’origine et année de demande, pour chacune des dix dernières années, combien de demandes de résidence permanente CIC a-t-il reçues d’enfants à charge dans le cadre du PAFR; f) réparties par pays d’origine et année de demande, combien de demandes en e), (i) ont-elles été acceptées, (ii) ont-elles été refusées, (iii) sont toujours en traitement; g) par pays d’origine et année de demande, quel est le temps de traitement moyen des demandes en a); h) par pays d’origine et année de demande, quel est le temps de traitement moyen des demandes en a) pour les demandeurs qui, au moment de leur demande, avaient (i) moins de 15 ans, (ii) entre 15 et 17 ans, (iii) plus de 17 ans; i) réparties par pays d’origine et année de demande, combien de demandes en a) ont-elles été refusées ou abandonnées du fait que le demandeur est devenu trop vieux pour se qualifier comme enfant à charge; j) par pays d’origine et année de demande, quel est le temps de traitement moyen des demandes en c); k) par pays d’origine et année de demande, quel est le temps de traitement moyen des demandes en c) pour les demandeurs qui, au moment de leur demande, avaient (i) moins de 15 ans, (ii) entre 15 et 17 ans, (iii) plus de 17 ans; l) réparties par pays d’origine et année de demande, combien de demandes en c) ont-elles été refusées ou abandonnées du fait que le demandeur est devenu trop vieux pour se qualifier comme enfant à charge; m) par pays d’origine et année de demande, quel est le temps de traitement moyen des demandes en e); n) par pays d’origine et année de demande, quel est le temps de traitement moyen des demandes en e) pour les demandeurs qui, au moment de leur demande, avaient (i) moins de 15 ans, (ii) entre 15 et 17 ans, (iii) plus de 17 ans; o) réparties par pays d’origine et année de demande, combien de demandes en e) ont-elles été refusées ou abandonnées du fait que le demandeur est devenu trop vieux pour se qualifier comme enfant à charge; p) le gouvernement a-t-il établi des temps de traitement qu’il considère comme acceptables pour les demandes de résidence permanente au Canada en tant qu’enfant à charge (i) de citoyens canadiens, (ii) de résidents permanents non citoyens, (iii) dans le cadre du Programme des aides familiaux résidants; q) de quelle façon les temps de traitement acceptables en p) ont-ils été déterminés; r) qui a déterminé les temps de traitement acceptables en p); s) quel écart, s’il y a lieu, y a-t-il pour les temps de traitement acceptables en p) selon (i) le pays d’origine, (ii) l’âge du demandeur, (iii) le bureau des visas, (iv) d’autres facteurs; t) quels changements, le cas échéant, a-t-on apportés aux temps de traitement acceptables en p) sur les dix dernières années, et quelles sont les raisons de ces changements; u) si l’on n’a pas établi de temps de traitement acceptables, pourquoi; v) quelle évaluation le gouvernement a-t-il fait relativement aux temps de traitement; w) quels ont été les résultats des évaluations en v); x) si le gouvernement n’a pas fait d’évaluation relativement aux temps de traitement, pourquoi; y) répartis par année, pour chacune des dix dernières années, quels bulletins opérationnels, changements aux manuels opérationnels ou autres directives, publiés ou non, officiels ou non, écrits ou oraux, CIC a-t-elle émis à l’intention des agents des visas concernant les demandes de résidence permanente en tant que personne à charge de résidents canadiens; z) pour chacune des directives en y), (i) comment la directive a-t-elle été émise, (ii) par qui a-t-elle été émise, (iii) quel était l’objectif de la directive, (iv) de quelle façon ses incidences ont-elles été évaluées, (v) est-elle encore en vigueur; aa) pour chaque directive en y) qui n’est plus en vigueur, (i) pourquoi n’est-elle plus en vigueur, (ii) qui a pris la décision d’y mettre fin, (iii) comment la décision d’y mettre fin a-t-elle été communiquée aux agents des visas?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 814 --
M. Charlie Angus:
En ce qui concerne la mise en œuvre par le gouvernement d’une stratégie pancanadienne de soins palliatifs et de fin de vie, prévue par la motion M-456: a) quelles mesures le gouvernement a-t-il prises ou prévoit-il prendre pour mettre cette stratégie en œuvre; b) quels sont les besoins relevés par le gouvernement auxquels cette stratégie pourrait remédier; c) quels renseignements ou données ont été demandés à Statistique Canada ou à l’Institut canadien d’information sur la santé, ou encore fournis par ces organismes, sur les besoins des patients relatifs aux soins palliatifs et de fin de vie; d) quelles normes et pratiques exemplaires ont été définies pour cette stratégie; e) quels intervenants et spécialistes du domaine médical ont été choisis pour collaborer à l’élaboration de cette stratégie et lesquels ont été approchés; f) quelles provinces et quels territoires ont été contactés pour discuter de l’établissement de cette stratégie; g) quelles sont les mesures que le gouvernement a prises pour la mise en œuvre de cette stratégie pour les services de santé qu’il fournit directement aux groupes de la population dont il est responsable, entre autres, les Premières Nations vivant dans des réserves, les militaires et les détenus; h) quels sont les programmes de soins palliatifs et de fin de vie actuellement en place pour les services de santé que le gouvernement fournit directement aux groupes de la population dont il est responsable, entre autres, les Premières Nations vivant dans des réserves, les militaires et les détenus?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 816 --
M. Ted Hsu:
En ce qui concerne l’Accord entre le gouvernement du Canada et le gouvernement des États-Unis d’Amérique en vue d’améliorer l’observation fiscale à l’échelle internationale au moyen d’un meilleur échange de renseignements en vertu de la Convention entre le Canada et les États-Unis d’Amérique en matière d’impôts sur le revenu et sur la fortune (l'Accord), la politique du gouvernement sur le dépôt des traités devant le Parlement (la politique) et la déclaration faite aux Communes par Peter Van Loan, leader du gouvernement à la Chambre, le 28 avril 2014, à savoir: « dans le cas présent, le gouvernement, ou plutôt le Cabinet, a accordé l'exemption prévue par la politique sur le dépôt. Ainsi, nous avons respecté à la lettre les exigences de la politique et le processus d'obtention d'une exemption. Par conséquent, l'exigence que le traité soit déposé à la Chambre 21 jours avant de présenter la mesure législative ne s'applique pas, et la politique a été respectée à la lettre » (la déclaration): a) l’Accord a-t-il bénéficié d’une exemption à la politique; b) quelle est la différence entre « exemption » et « exception » aux termes de la politique; c) si on substitue le mot « exception » au mot « exemption », la déclaration est-elle exacte; d) sur quelle base la déclaration a-t-elle été faite; e) comment le leader du gouvernement a-t-il été informé que l’Accord avait bénéficié d’une exemption ou exception à la politique; f) quels documents ou notes ont été rédigés au sujet de cette exemption ou exception et quel est leur numéro d’accès ou de contrôle; g) qui a participé à la décision d’accorder une exemption ou exception et à quelle étape; h) par quelle démarche, étape par étape, une exemption ou exception à la politique a-t-elle été accordée; i) qui a examiné la décision d’accorder une exemption ou exception, (i) quand, (ii) pourquoi, (iii) comment; j) la politique s’applique-t-elle à l’Accord et comment; k) existe-t-il des échanges de correspondance entre ministères au sujet du dépôt de l’Accord aux termes de la politique et quels sont les numéros de référence de ces documents; l) à quelle date l’Accord a-t-il été conclu; m) à quelle date l’Accord a-t-il été déposé au Parlement; n) à quelle date l’Accord a-t-il été ratifié; o) quand la Chambre a-t-elle été informée du texte de l’Accord; p) comment la Chambre a-t-elle été informée du texte de l’Accord; q) quand la Chambre a-t-elle été informée de l’exemption ou exception accordée à l’Accord aux termes de la politique; r) comment la Chambre a-t-elle été informée de l’exemption ou exception de l’Accord à la politique; s) quand et comment la Chambre est-elle d’ordinaire informée des exceptions à la politique; t) sans le rappel au Règlement ayant donné lieu à la déclaration du leader du gouvernement à la Chambre, comment et quand la Chambre aurait-elle été informée de l’exemption; u) quelle procédure est en place pour garantir que le Parlement est informé des exceptions à la politique; v) quelle procédure est en place pour garantir que les Canadiens sont informés des exceptions à la politique; w) quelle procédure est en place pour garantir que le Parlement est informé des exemptions à la politique; x) quelle procédure est en place pour garantir que les Canadiens sont informés des exemptions à la politique; y) qu’entend-on par « urgent » dans le contexte de la politique; z) comment a-t-on décidé qu’il était urgent de ratifier l’Accord; aa) qui a pris la décision visée en z), (i) comment, (ii) au vu de quels renseignements, (iii) en vertu de quel pouvoir, (iv) suivant quels critères; bb) comment la décision visée en z) a-t-elle été examinée, (i) par qui, (ii) comment, (iii) quand, (iv) suivant quels critères; cc) qui sont ou étaient les ministres principaux pour ce qui est de l’application de la politique à l’Accord et comment cela a-t-il été déterminé; dd) quand et comment le ministre des Affaires étrangères et les ministres principaux ont-ils demandé au premier ministre d’approuver une exemption à la politique; ee) quand l’approbation visée en dd) a-t-elle été accordée et comment; ff) quels échanges de correspondance – avec numéro de référence et de contrôle – corroborent la réponse en dd) et ee); gg) a-t-on rédigé « conjointement une lettre expliquant clairement l'objet de la demande d'exemption pour que le traité soit ratifié sans avoir été préalablement déposé devant la Chambre des communes »; hh) en ce qui concerne la lettre visée en gg), (i) qui l’a rédigée, (ii) quelle date porte-t-elle, (iii) comment peut-on l’obtenir, (iv) qui en a la garde, (v) à qui est-elle adressée; ii) la lettre a-t-elle été rédigée en consultation avec la Section des traités du ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Commerce international et avec le secrétariat approprié rattaché au Bureau du Conseil privé; jj) quels documents -- avec numéro de référence ou de contrôle pour chacun -- corroborent la réponse en ii); kk) qui a la garde de ces lettres conjointes; ll) en ce qui concerne l’Accord, les ministres responsables et le ministre des Affaires étrangères ont-ils vu tôt dans le processus qu’il faudrait obtenir exemption à la politique avant l’obtenir du Cabinet l’autorisation de signer un traité; mm) qu’entend-on par « voir tôt dans le processus » aux fins de la politique; nn) qu’entend-on par « voir » aux fins de la politique; oo) a-t-on demandé par mémoire au Cabinet l’approbation de principe de l’Accord; pp) de quels mémoires au Cabinet l’Accord a-t-il fait l’objet en précisant (i) leur date, (ii) s’ils sont protégés, (iii) qui les a produits, (iv) leur numéro de référence ou de contrôle; qq) de quels documents visés en pp) peut-on dire qu’ils exposent « clairement l'objet de la demande d'exemption » à la politique; rr) comment a-t-on justifié l’exception de l’Accord à la politique; ss) qui décide si l’exception à la politique est justifiée; tt) quelle est une justification acceptable aux termes de la politique; uu) comment la justification est-elle définie aux termes de la politique; vv) la justification doit-elle répondre à un minimum de recevabilité aux termes de la politique et quel est-il; ww) quand l’exception a-t-elle été accordée; xx) le ministre des Affaires étrangères a-t-il informé « la Chambre des communes que le Canada a accepté d'être lié par l'instrument dans les meilleurs délais après la ratification » conformément à la politique; yy) quand l’action visée en xx) a-t-elle eu lieu et comment; zz) en 2014, quel était le numéro d’ordre de l’exemption ou exception à la politique dont a bénéficié l’Accord; aaa) en 2014, la justification de l’exception dont a bénéficié l’Accord était-elle la seule du genre; bbb) en 2014, l’Accord a-t-il été le seul instrument jugé urgent aux termes de la politique; ccc) le leader du gouvernement en Chambre est-il toujours informé des exceptions ou exemptions à la politique et, si oui, comment; ddd) la Chambre est-elle toujours informée des exceptions ou exemptions à la politique et comment; eee) dès quelle date l’Accord aurait-il pu être déposé au Parlement; fff) comment la date visée en eee) a-t-elle été fixée; ggg) si l’Accord avait pu être déposé au Parlement plus tôt qu’en o), (i) pourquoi ne l’a-t-il pas été, (ii) quelles décisions ont été prises à cet égard, (iii) par qui ont-elles été prises, (iv) comment, (v) sur quelle base; hhh) si la déclaration avait pu être faite aux Communes avant le 28 avril 2014, (i) pourquoi ne l’a-t-elle pas été, (ii) quelles décisions ont été prises à cet égard, (iii) par qui ont-elles été prises, (iv) comment, (v) sur quelle base?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 817 --
M. Ted Hsu:
En ce qui concerne Statistique Canada: a) a-t-on étudié la façon d’utiliser des sources et méthodes de collecte de données autres que les sondages pour obtenir les données tirées du questionnaire détaillé de recensement dont le remplissage était obligatoire en 1971 et à tous les cinq ans de 1981 à 2006; b) quelles sources et méthodes de collecte de données autres que les sondages a-t-on envisagé d’utiliser avant 2011 pour obtenir les données tirées du formulaire détaillé de recensement dont le remplissage était obligatoire en 1971 et à tous les cinq ans de 1981 à 2006; c) quelles sources et méthodes de collecte de données autres que les sondages a-t-on envisagé d’utiliser depuis 2011 pour obtenir les données tirées du formulaire détaillé de recensement dont le remplissage était obligatoire en 1971 et à tous les cinq ans de 1981 à 2006; d) avant 2011, quels gouvernements étrangers a-t-on consultés au sujet de la possibilité d’utiliser des sources et méthodes de collecte de données autres que les sondages pour obtenir les données tirées du formulaire détaillé de recensement dont le remplissage était obligatoire en 1971 et à tous les cinq ans de 1981 à 2006; e) depuis 2011, quels gouvernements étrangers a-t-on consultés au sujet de la possibilité d’utiliser des sources et méthodes de collecte de données autres que les sondages pour obtenir les données tirées du formulaire détaillé de recensement dont le remplissage était obligatoire en 1971 et à tous les cinq ans de 1981 à 2006; f) quels études, rapports ou évaluations Statistique Canada a-t-il produits au sujet de la possibilité d’utiliser des sources et méthodes de collecte de données autres que les sondages pour obtenir les données tirées du formulaire détaillé de recensement dont le remplissage était obligatoire en 1971 et à tous les cinq ans de 1981 à 2006, en précisant (i) leur date, (ii) leur titre, (iii) leur numéro de référence interne; g) quels documents d’information a-t-on préparés à l’intention des ministres et de leur personnel au sujet de la possibilité d’utiliser des sources et méthodes de collecte de données autres que les sondages pour obtenir les données tirées du formulaire détaillé de recensement dont le remplissage était obligatoire en 1971 et à tous les cinq ans de 1981 à 2006, en précisant (i) leur date, (ii) leur titre, (iii) leur numéro de référence interne; h) avant 2011, Statistique Canada a-t-il envisagé la possibilité de faire des recoupements entre les banques de données de divers pouvoirs publics contenant des renseignements personnels sur les Canadiens à l’aide d’une forme quelconque de clé primaire; i) depuis 2011, Statistique Canada a-t-il envisagé la possibilité de faire des recoupements entre les banques de données de divers pouvoirs publics contenant des renseignements personnels sur les Canadiens à l’aide d’une forme quelconque de clé primaire?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 818 --
Mme Peggy Nash:
En ce qui concerne le financement gouvernemental : au cours de chaque exercice depuis 2011-2012, a) quels sont les détails relatifs à toutes les subventions et contributions et à tous les prêts accordés à tout organisme ou groupe de la circonscription de Parkdale—High Park, c’est-à-dire dans chaque cas (i) le nom du bénéficiaire, (ii) la municipalité dans laquelle est situé le bénéficiaire, (iii) la date, (iv) le montant, (v) le ministère ou l’organisme octroyeur, (vi) le programme dans le cadre duquel la subvention, la contribution ou le prêt ont été accordés, (vii) la nature ou le but; b) pour chaque subvention, contribution et prêt mentionnés en a), un communiqué l’annonçant a-t-il été publié, et, dans l’affirmative, quels sont (i) la date, (ii) le titre, (iii) le numéro de dossier du communiqué?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 820 --
L'hon. Ralph Goodale:
En ce qui concerne les nouveaux investissements de 5,8 milliards de dollars dans l’infrastructure annoncés par le premier ministre le 24 novembre 2014, à London, en Ontario, et chacun des engagements pris dans la note d’information connexe: a) de quel ministère et programme relève chaque engagement; b) quelles sommes seront affectées à chaque engagement pour chacun des cinq prochains exercices; c) ces fonds faisaient-ils partie du cadre financier du Budget de 2014; d) parmi ces engagements, certains représentent-ils une augmentation des dépenses prévues et, dans l'affirmative, (i) lesquels, (ii) de combien; e) aux fins de ces programmes d’immobilisations et d’investissements dans l’infrastructure au cours de chacun des exercices depuis 2004-2005, quelles sommes (i) ont été attribuées, (ii) ont été dépensées, (iii) n’ont pas été utilisées; f) l’utilisation de ces fonds faisait-elle partie des prévisions économiques employées par le ministère des Finances?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 821 --
Mme Laurin Liu:
En ce qui concerne l'investissement du gouvernement dans l'industrie aérospatiale depuis 2010: quel montant a été investi en prêt ou en crédit d'impôt de recherche et développement, ventilé par (i) année, (ii) province et territoire, (iii) programme fédéral, (iv) type de financement (crédit d'impôt, prêt remboursable ou non-remboursable), (v) compagnie spécifique?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 826 --
M. Rodger Cuzner:
En ce qui concerne les voyages du Premier ministre dans le Nord du Canada en août 2006, août 2007, août 2008, août 2009, août 2010, août 2011, août 2012 et août 2013, ou aux environs de ces dates: quels sont les coûts détaillés de ces voyages, y compris les coûts liés aux fonctionnaires fédéraux qui se trouvaient déjà sur le terrain dans le Nord du Canada et qui ont été chargés de tâches de soutien, ventilés par (i) date, (ii) lieu, (iii) ministère ou organisme, (iv) objet ou nature de la dépense?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 827 --
M. Frank Valeriote:
En ce qui concerne les délégations d’Anciens Combattants Canada à Chypre en mars 2014, en Normandie en juin 2014 et en Italie en novembre 2014: a) pour chaque délégation, quels sont (i) les frais engagés par chacun des ministères ayant contribué aux frais de la délégation, (ii) les frais d’hébergement, (iii) les frais de transport, (iv) les frais de cadeaux, (v) les frais de repas et d'indemnités journalières, (iv) la liste complète des membres de la délégation, (vii) l’itinéraire complet, (viii) le motif; b) pour chacun des membres de la délégation, quels sont (i) les frais engagés par chacun des ministères ayant contribué aux frais de la délégation, (ii) les frais d’hébergement, (iii) les frais de transport, (iv) les frais de cadeaux, (v) les frais de repas et d'indemnités journalières, (vi) la raison de l’inclusion dans la délégation; c) pour chaque contrat d’hébergement, y a-t-il eu appel d’offres et, si non, quelle était la raison pour laquelle il n'y a pas eu d'appel d'offres; d) pour chaque délégation, (i) quand l’itinéraire a-t-il été provisoirement établi, (ii) quand a-t-il été arrêté, (iii) quand les réservations de voyage du ministre des Anciens Combattants ont-elles été faites, (iv) s’il y a eu des changements apportés aux réservations visées en (iii), quels sont-ils et quand ont-ils été apportés?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 828 --
L'hon. Geoff Regan:
En ce qui concerne la campagne de publicité relative à la marijuana et aux médicaments d’ordonnance lancée par Santé Canada le ou vers le 20 octobre 2014: a) quel est le nom, le poste, l’organisme ou l’affiliation des personnes qui ont été consultées avant de prendre cette décision; b) quelles observations, propositions ou recommandations les personnes consultées ont-elles formulées; c) quel est la date, l’heure et l’endroit des réunions qui ont été tenues avec les personnes ou les organismes consultés; d) combien a été affecté à la concrétisation de cette proposition durant l'exercice 2014-2015; e) quelles sont les étapes suivantes de la campagne; f) comment sont mesurés l’efficacité, la portée et l’impact de la campagne; g) quelles autres méthodes le Ministère ou le gouvernement envisagent-ils d’employer pour sensibiliser les Canadiens aux réels dangers de l’abus des drogues?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 830 --
L'hon. Mark Eyking:
En ce qui concerne la publicité gouvernementale: quel est a) le montant total consacré aux messages publicitaires à la télévision et à la radio; b) le nombre total de d’insertions dans chaque média, ventilé par (i) sujet du message publicitaire et titre de la campagne publicitaire, (ii) émetteur de radiotélévision qui a diffusé le message publicitaire, (iii) numéro d’identification, numéro d’autorisation média ou le numéro PUB, (iv) nom, (v) période de diffusion du message publicitaire, notamment du 5 septembre 2014 au 11 octobre 2014, du 12 octobre 2014 au 17 novembre 2014 et depuis le 18 novembre 2014 inclusivement?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 831 --
Mme Laurin Liu:
En ce qui concerne le Programme canadien des accélérateurs et des incubateurs lancé en septembre 2013: a) combien d’argent a-t-on consacré au programme, par année; b) combien de demandes ont été reçues, par province et territoire; c) combien d’argent sera affecté, par province et territoire; d) quels groupes ont reçu des fonds; e) à quels groupes s’est-on engagé à verser des fonds?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 838 --
M. Charlie Angus:
En ce qui concerne le système d’accès à l’information: ventilé par ministère, organisme et agence gouvernementaux et pour chaque année depuis 2004, a) quel était le budget pour la gestion des demandes d’accès à l’information; b) combien d’argent a été dépensé pour le système d’accès à l’information; c) combien d’argent a été dépensé pour les équivalents temps plein; d) combien d’argent a été dépensé pour les employés qui ne sont pas des équivalents temps plein, tels que des consultants et des employés temporaires, pour la réalisation d’activités d’information; e) quel a été le coût horaire de ces employés non équivalents temps plein; f) quelles étaient les tâches pour lesquelles ces employés non équivalents temps plein ont été embauchés; g) quelles sont les autorisations de sécurité de ces employés non équivalents temps plein?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 840 --
L'hon. Mauril Bélanger:
En ce qui concerne l’annonce faite à propos du gouvernement qui transférera à la Commission de la Capitale nationale jusqu’à 60 acres de terrain appartenant à Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada pour la construction d’un hôpital et d’installations d’enseignement: a) cette décision fut-elle précédée par une consultation publique et privée; b) quel processus de consultation fut effectué et par le biais de quelles méthodes; c) quand le processus de consultation fut-il lancé; d) quels organismes ont été consultés?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 841 --
L'hon. Gerry Byrne:
En ce qui concerne les recettes publiques: pour chaque organisation gouvernementale, y compris les ministères, les organismes et les sociétés d’État, a) lorsqu’elle offre un produit ou un service, l’organisation impose-t-elle un supplément pour le carburant ou tous autres frais relatifs au coût du carburant; b) si la réponse en a) est affirmative, (i) quelle est la nature ou la description du bien ou service offert à l’égard duquel un supplément pour le carburant ou tous autres frais connexes sont imposés, (ii) dans chaque cas, quand a-t-on décidé d’imposer le supplément pour le carburant ou les frais connexes, (iii) à quelle fréquence le supplément pour le carburant ou les frais connexes sont-ils rajustés, (iv) quelles sont les dates auxquelles le supplément pour le carburant ou les frais connexes ont été rajustés ou établis depuis le 1er janvier 2011, (v) pour chaque rajustement ou établissement du supplément pour le carburant ou des frais connexes mentionné en (iv), quel montant a été établi à cette date à l’égard du supplément pour le carburant ou des frais connexes?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 842 --
M. Andrew Cash:
En ce qui concerne les poursuites relatives aux changements au Programme fédéral de santé intérimaire: a) quels sont les frais, y compris les frais juridiques, engagés par le gouvernement à ce jour; b) quels sont les frais totaux prévus, y compris les frais juridiques, de l’appel du gouvernement à l’égard de la décision de la Cour fédérale?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 843 --
Mme Joyce Murray:
En ce qui concerne l’approvisionnement de biens et services à l’usage du ministère de la Défense nationale: pour chaque contrat de plus de 25 000 $ octroyé dans le cadre duquel un fournisseur s’est désisté ou n’a pas respecté la date de livraison après le 31 mars 2011, quel est a) le nom du contrat; b) le type de contrat ou la méthode d’approvisionnement; c) le numéro de référence, le numéro de la demande de soumissions et le numéro de suivi; d) le nom de toutes les parties au contrat; e) la date à laquelle le contrat a été octroyé; f) la description du bien ou du service fourni; g) la valeur du contrat; h) la date de livraison indiquée dans le contrat; i) le montant d’argent versé par le gouvernement au fournisseur avant la livraison, s’il y a lieu; j) la date à laquelle le bien ou le service a été livré, dans le cas des livraisons en retard; k) la date de livraison future annoncée, dans le cas des livraisons encore en suspens; l) la date à laquelle le contrat a été annulé, dans le cas de contrats annulés; m) la raison de l’annulation du contrat; n) le montant des paiements anticipés retournés au gouvernement, dans le cas de non-livraison de biens et services; o) le montant et les modalités des pénalités contractuelles par suite de livraison tardive ou de non-livraison; p) le montant d’argent récupéré par le gouvernement relativement aux pénalités par suite de livraison tardive ou de non-livraison?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 847 --
L'hon. John McKay:
En ce qui concerne les services météorologiques: a) quel est le nom, l’emplacement et le numéro ou le code d’identification de chaque centre météorologique canadien au sol en service à quelque moment que ce soit au Canada depuis le 1er janvier 2006; b) quel est le nom, l’emplacement, le numéro ou le code d’identification et le modèle de chaque bouée de système d’acquisition de données océaniques en service dans les eaux canadiennes ou dans les eaux internationales, mais exploitées par le gouvernement du Canada, depuis le 1er janvier 2006; c) quel est le nom, l’emplacement et le numéro ou le code d’identification de chaque station radar météorologique en service à quelque moment que ce soit au Canada depuis le 1er janvier 2006; d) quel est le nom, l’emplacement et le numéro ou le code d’identification de chaque détecteur de foudre en service à quelque moment que ce soit au Canada depuis le 1er janvier 2006; e) pour chaque centre, bouée, station ou détecteur mentionnés aux points a) à d), pour chaque mois depuis le 1er janvier 2006, (i) pendant combien de jours le centre, la bouée, la station ou le détecteur ont-ils été hors d’usage, (ii) quelle en était la raison, (iii) ont-ils été remis en service, (iv) quel ministère ou organisme est responsable de leur entretien?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 848 --
M. Frank Valeriote:
En ce qui concerne les relations publiques du gouvernement, pour chaque contrat de services photographiques au cabinet du premier ministre, d’un ministre, d’un ministre d’État ou d’un secrétaire parlementaire depuis le 1er janvier 2006: a) quels sont la date, le numéro et la valeur du contrat; b) quelles sont les dates où les services de photographie ont été fournis; c) quel était l’événement ou l’occasion, le cas échéant, lors duquel les services de photographie ont été fournis; d) les photographies prises ont-elles été utilisées dans des publications du gouvernement ou sur des sites Web du gouvernement; e) les photographies ont-elles servi à d’autres utilisations, et dans l’affirmative, à quelles utilisations; f) qui est le dépositaire ou le responsable des photographies qui ont été prises; g) si les photographies ne sont plus nécessaires aux activités courantes du cabinet, ont-elles été ou seront-elles transférées à la bibliothèque ou aux archives du ministère, à un musée national ou à Bibliothèque et Archives Canada; h) le ministère, l’organisme ou l’organisation gouvernementale dont le ministre, le ministre d’État ou le secrétaire parlementaire est responsable a-t-il dans son effectif une personne à même de fournir des services de photographie, et dans l’affirmative, quel est son poste; i) si la réponse en h) est affirmative, pourquoi un photographe de l’extérieur a-t-il été engagé?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 849 --
M. David McGuinty:
En ce qui concerne les achats du gouvernement: quels sont les détails de tous les contrats d'achat de services de recherche ou de rédaction de discours pour les ministres depuis le 6 juin 2014, à savoir (a) pour chacun des contrats (i) les dates de début et de fin, (ii) les parties contractantes, (iii) le numéro de dossier, (iv) la nature ou la description du travail; (b) dans le cas d'un contrat de rédaction de discours, (i) la date, (ii) l’emplacement, (iii) le public ou l’événement à l’intention duquel le discours a été, ou devait être prononcé?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 850 --
M. David McGuinty:
En ce qui concerne les communications du gouvernement depuis le 18 septembre 2014: a) pour chaque communiqué contenant l’expression « gouvernement Harper » diffusé par un ministère, agence, office, société de la Couronne ou organisme fédéral, quel est (i) le titre ou l’objet, (ii) la date, (iii) le numéro de dossier ou de code, (iv) le sujet; b) chacun des communiqués a-t-il été diffusé sur (i) le site internet du ministère, agence, office, société de la Couronne ou organisme fédéral, (ii) sur Marketwire, (iii) sur Canada Newswire, (iv) sur un autre service commercial de transmission ou de distribution en précisant lequel; c) pour chaque communiqué distribué par un service commercial de transmission ou de distribution mentionné en b)(ii) à b)(iv), combien le recours au service a-t-il coûté?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 851 --
L'hon. Geoff Regan:
En ce qui concerne Parcs Canada, au sujet du Lieu historique national du Canada de Beaubassin (« Beaubassin »): a) quels sont les détails de toutes les dépenses, ventilées par exercice, depuis 2002-2003 inclus, relatives (i) aux acquisitions, (ii) à la maintenance, (iii) aux recherches archéologiques, (iv) aux recherches archivistiques, (v) et autres dépenses, en précisant la nature de ces dépenses; b) quels sont les dates, numéros de dossier et titres de tous les rapports ou documents relatifs au fonctionnement de Beaubassin; c) quels sont les dates, numéros de dossier et titres de tous les rapports ou documents relatifs aux recherches archéologiques et historiques relatives à Beaubassin; d) quels sont les détails bibliographiques de tous les rapports ou articles relatifs à Beaubassin qu’ont écrits, coécrits, ou auxquels ont participé, tout archéologue ou chercheur travaillant pour, au nom de, ou en association avec le gouvernement ou un employé ou agent du gouvernement?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 852 --
L'hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
En ce qui concerne les activités de publicité à la télévision de la Monnaie royale canadienne depuis le 1er janvier 2009 : pour toute communication entre la Monnaie royale et toute agence, tout ministère, toute société d’État ou tout autre organisme du gouvernement autre que la Monnaie royale, a) quelle est la date; b) qui sont l’expéditeur et le destinataire; c) quel est le numéro de dossier ou de référence?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 853 --
L'hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
En ce qui concerne les communications au gouvernement, pour chaque ministère, agence, société d’État ou autre organisme gouvernemental : a) jusqu’où dans le temps remontent les archives Web des communiqués de presse et fiches d’information; b) pour quelles raisons a-t-on choisi cette fourchette de dates pour les communiqués de presse et les fiches d’information conservés pour un accès en ligne; c) les communiqués de presse et les fiches d’information qui précèdent la fourchette de dates sont-ils conservés ailleurs; d) en cas de réponse affirmative en c) où sont-ils conservés et sont-ils accessibles au public; e) quels sont les titre, date, numéro de dossier de tout document, ordonnance, politique, directive ou tout autre document où est énoncée la politique actuelle sur la conservation des communiqués de presse et des fiches d’information dans les sites Web; f) quels sont les titre, date, numéro de dossier de tout document, ordonnance, politique, directive ou tout autre document où est énoncée toute politique antérieure en matière de conservation des communiqués de presse et des fiches d’information dans les sites Web; g) existe-t-il une politique pangouvernementale ayant trait à la conservation des communiqués de presse et des fiches d’information sur les sites Web; h) si la réponse en g) est affirmative, quels sont les titre, date, numéro de dossier de tout document, ordonnance, politique, directive ou tout autre document où est énoncée la politique actuelle ou toute politique antérieure?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 854 --
L'hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
En ce qui concerne les responsabilités régionales des ministres, pour chaque exercice depuis 2005-2006 inclusivement : a) quels sont les ministres qui ont eu des responsabilités de représentation régionale et de quel territoire, province ou autre région chacun était-il responsable; b) quelles sont les dates de début et de fin de ces responsabilités; c) quelles instructions chacun de ces ministres a-t-il reçues au sujet de ses responsabilités régionales; d) à combien se sont élevées les dépenses de fonctionnement que chaque ministre a engagées aux fins de ses fonctions de représentation régionale, et quel est le détail des sommes affectées aux traitements et salaires, aux contrats de services, aux contrats de fourniture de biens, aux baux de location de locaux à bureaux, et aux autres dépenses; e) où les bureaux loués se trouvaient-ils; f) combien d’employés chacun des bureaux régionaux des ministres compte-t-il ou a-t-il compté; g) où le lieu de travail principal de chaque employé se trouvait-il; h) à combien s’élèvent les frais de déplacement et d’hébergement engagés par chaque ministre pour lui-même ou pour chacun de ses employés aux fins de ses responsabilités régionales?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 855 --
L'hon. Carolyn Bennett:
En ce qui concerne une stratégie de vérification des systèmes d’identification des Métis : a) quelles sont les fins des contrats qu’il est proposé de passer ou qui ont été passés avec l’Association canadienne de normalisation pour élaborer une stratégie de vérification des systèmes d’identification des Métis; b) quelle est la valeur pécuniaire de chaque contrat; c) quelle est la date de prise d’effet de chaque contrat; d) quel est le numéro de référence de chaque contrat; e) de quelle ampleur est le travail à effectuer aux fins de chaque contrat; f) chaque contrat a-t-il été adjugé à un fournisseur exclusif ou après un appel d’offres; g) si certains de ces contrats ont été adjugés après un appel d’offres, combien de soumissions a-t-on reçues; h) chaque contrat comporte-t-il une clause obligeant à employer des Métis ou à faire en sorte que l'approvisionnement visé par le contrat favorise des Métis; i) le gouvernement a-t-il consulté les organismes qui représentent les Métis au sujet de l’identification des Métis en général ou de chacun de ces contrats en particulier et, le cas échéant, (i) quels organismes Métis a-t-il consultés, (ii) quel a été le sujet, la durée et la portée de ces consultations, (iii) qu’en est-il ressorti; j) quelles définitions du terme « Métis » utilisera-t-on aux fins de cette stratégie de vérification; k) pour quelles raisons a-t-on retenu les définitions du terme « Métis » qui seront utilisées; l) la stratégie de vérification est-elle compatible avec les Articles 9 et 33 de la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones et, si ce n'est pas le cas, en quoi les deux textes sont-ils incompatibles et quelle est la portée de l’incompatibilité?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 856 --
Mme Judy Foote:
En ce qui concerne le rapport intitulé « Tribunaux unifiés de la famille -- Évaluation formative », publié en mars 2009 par le ministère de la Justice: a) quels progrès ont été réalisés à l’égard de chacune des trois recommandations énoncées à la section 8; b) depuis l’exercice 2002-2003, quelles initiatives, figurant à la page 8 de la version anglaise du rapport, le ministère de la Justice a-t-il lancées pour améliorer les services que les provinces et les territoires fournissent dans le domaine du droit de la famille; c) combien le gouvernement fédéral a-t-il dépensé au cours de chaque exercice depuis 2002-2003 dans chacune des initiatives énoncées en b)?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 857 --
Mme Judy Foote:
En ce qui concerne le Musée des sciences et de la technologie du Canada, quels sont les dates, titres et numéros de dossiers de toutes les notes d’information, documents d’information, rapports, évaluations techniques ou autres documents, qui ont été produits, créés ou modifiés depuis le 1er janvier 2006, au sujet de l’état de l’édifice abritant le Musée des sciences et de la technologie du Canada situé sur le boulevard Saint-Laurent à Ottawa, des réparations effectuées à cet édifice ou encore qui ont été ou sont envisagées, ou des diverses options relativement au remplacement de l’édifice, détenus par: a) la Société des musées de sciences et technologies du Canada; b) le ministère du Patrimoine canadien; c) Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada; d) la Commission de la Capitale nationale; e) le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada; f) le Bureau du Conseil privé?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 859 --
Mme Yvonne Jones:
En ce qui concerne le droit d’auteur de la Couronne: a) quelle est la totalité des recettes perçues, au cours de chaque exercice depuis 2005-2006 inclusivement, par chaque ministère, agence ou autre organisme du gouvernement pour l’octroi de licences d’utilisation d’œuvres pour lesquelles le Canada, un ministère, une agence ou un autre organisme du gouvernement détient un droit d’auteur; b) quelles sont les œuvres pour lesquelles on a ainsi accordé une licence, en précisant le titre ou la nature de l’œuvre, ainsi que la date de sa publication ou de sa création; c) quel a été le coût total payé par chaque ministère ou agence pour administrer l’octroi de licences pour ces œuvres au cours de chaque exercice depuis 2005-2006 inclusivement; d) combien de violations du droit d’auteur de la Couronne ou du gouvernement fédéral ont fait l’objet de poursuites ou d’autres mesures au cours de chaque exercice depuis 2005-2006 inclusivement; e) quels ont été les résultats ou les résolutions découlant des poursuites ou des autres mesures en d); f) combien de demandes de droit d’utilisation d’œuvres protégées par le droit d’auteur de la Couronne ont été refusées ou rejetées depuis l'exercice 2005-2006, en précisant le titre ou la nature de l’œuvre, sa date de publication ou de création ainsi que la raison du refus ou du rejet de la demande; g) quelles mesures, s’il y a lieu, le gouvernement a-t-il prises pour atténuer l’impact ou les coûts liés aux utilisateurs d’œuvres non publiées protégées par un droit d’auteur perpétuel?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 860 --
M. David McGuinty:
En ce qui concerne la fonction publique, pour chaque exercice depuis 2008-2009 inclusivement: a) combien de jours de congé de maladie étaient dus aux employés à la fin de l’exercice ou à la date la plus récente dans le cas de l’exercice en cours; b) combien d’employés sont partis en retraite; c) combien d’employés ont quitté la fonction publique pour des raisons autres que la retraite en distinguant entre ceux qui sont partis pour cause (i) de déficience, (ii) de démission, (iii) de cessation d’emploi, (iv) de décès, (v) autres; d) sur le total des jours de maladie visés en a), combien n’ont pas été payés pour l’une des causes mentionnées en b) et c); e) quelle est la valeur en dollars des jours de maladie visés en a), d) et e)?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 861 --
L'hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
En ce qui concerne le ministère des Pêches et des Océans: quels ont été la valeur et le pourcentage de tous les « crédits inutilisés », ventilés par année de 2006 à 2013?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 863 --
L'hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
En ce qui concerne les prestations d’assurance-emploi: a) quels sont les montants des prestations d’assurance-emploi versées à l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard de l’exercice 2010-2011 à l’exercice courant, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) circonscription ou niveau de détail le plus précis connu; b) quel nombre de personnes ont touché des prestations dans l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard de l’exercice 2010-2011 à l’exercice courant, ventilé par (i) année, (ii) circonscription ou niveau de détail le plus précis connu; c) quel nombre de demandes de prestations d’assurance-emploi ont été faites à l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard de l’exercice 2010-2011 à l’exercice courant, ventilé par (i) année, (ii) circonscription ou niveau de détail le plus précis connu; d) quel nombre de demandes de prestations d’assurance-emploi à l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard ont été rejetées de l’exercice 2010-2011 à l’exercice courant, ventilé par (i) année, (ii) circonscription ou niveau de détail le plus précis connu; e) quel est le délai de traitement moyen des demandes de prestations d’assurance-emploi à l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard de l’exercice 2010-2011 à l’exercice courant, ventilé par (i) année, (ii) circonscription ou niveau de détail le plus précis connu, et quel est le délai de traitement unique le plus long jamais enregistré; f) quel est le nombre d’appels de l’assurance-emploi à l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard de l’exercice 2010-2011 à l’exercice courant, ventilé par (i) année, (ii) circonscription ou niveau de détail le plus précis connu, (iii) nombre de décisions favorables aux appelants, (iv) nombre de décisions défavorables aux appelants; g) quel est le délai d’attente moyen pour une décision concernant un appel de l’assurance-emploi à l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard de l’exercice 2010-2011 à l’exercice courant, ventilé par (i) année, (ii) circonscription ou niveau de détail le plus précis connu, et quel est le délai d’attente unique le plus long jamais enregistré; h) si certains des renseignements demandés ne peuvent pas être fournis, pour quelles raisons précises est-ce le cas?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 864 --
L'hon. Scott Brison:
En ce qui concerne l’application de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information: a) de quels critères et de quel procédé le gouvernement se sert-il pour juger qu’une demande déposée en vertu de cette loi est frivole ou vexatoire; b) quels sont les titres, dates et numéros de dossier des documents dans lesquels sont énoncés les critères et le procédé; c) pour chaque institution gouvernementale, combien de demandes l’institution a-t-elle traitées depuis le 1er janvier 2014; d) sur le nombre de demandes en c), combien ont été jugées frivoles ou vexatoires selon les critères et le procédé énoncés en a); e) pour chaque institution gouvernementale, quelles sont les dix plus récentes demandes qui, de l’avis du gouvernement, étaient frivoles ou vexatoires, avec le numéro de dossier de la demande, le texte de la demande et la catégorie du demandeur, selon les catégories suivantes, (i) universitaire, (ii) entreprise (secteur privé), (iii) média, (iv) organisation, (v) membre du public, (vi) a refusé de s’identifier?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 865 --
M. Kevin Lamoureux:
En ce qui concerne le traitement des demandes d’immigration par le gouvernement: a) quel est le coût total moyen pour le gouvernement et quel est le temps requis pour traiter une seule demande de la catégorie (i) des travailleurs qualifiés (fédéral), (ii) des travailleurs de métiers spécialisés (fédéral), (iii) de l’expérience canadienne, (iv) des travailleurs qualifiés sélectionnés par le Québec, (v) du Programme des candidats des provinces, (vi) des visas pour démarrage d’entreprise, (vii) des travailleurs autonomes, (viii) du parrainage d’un époux, d’un conjoint de fait ou partenaire conjugal ou d’un enfant à charge, (ix) du parrainage de parents et grands-parents, (x) des demandes d’asile présentées à un point d’entrée ou dans un bureau intérieur, (xi) des réfugiés parrainés par le gouvernement, (xii) des réfugiés parrainés par le secteur privé, (xiii) des visas de résident temporaire, (xiv) des super visas pour parents et grands-parents, (xv) du système Entrée express; b) pour chaque exercice depuis 2009-2010 inclusivement, combien de demandes ont été (i) reçues, (ii) traitées, (iii) acceptées, (iv) rejetées, (v) traitées autrement, en précisant la nature du traitement en question?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 866 --
M. Kevin Lamoureux:
En ce qui concerne les communications du gouvernement: pour chaque ministère, organisme ou société d’État, quels sont les titres, dates et numéros de dossier de tous les documents, rapports, notes de service, ordres, directives, lignes directrices, guides ou autres dossiers relatifs à l’emploi de l’expression « gouvernement Harper » dans les communiqués de presse ou autres documents de communications?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 867 --
M. Kevin Lamoureux:
En ce qui concerne la rédaction législative: a) depuis le 1er janvier 2008, quels sont les titres, les dates et les numéros de dossier des documents, rapports, notes ou autres dossiers relatifs aux pratiques et aux procédures de rédaction des titres, des titres abrégés ou des titres subsidiaires des projets de loi émanant du gouvernement déposés au Sénat ou à la Chambre des communes; b) pour chaque projet de loi émanant du gouvernement déposé au Sénat ou à la Chambre des communes depuis le 1er janvier 2008, quels sont les titres, les dates et les numéros de dossier des documents, rapports, notes ou autres dossiers, depuis le 1er janvier 2008, relatifs aux titres, aux titres abrégés ou aux titres subsidiaires de ce projet de loi?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 868 --
M. Emmanuel Dubourg:
En ce qui concerne tous les documents produits pour les secrétaires parlementaires, dans le passé ou aujourd’hui, ou pour leur personnel du 1er avril 2013 à aujourd’hui : pour tout document ou dossier d’information produit, quels sont (i) la date, (ii) le titre ou le sujet, (iii) le numéro de suivi interne du ministère?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 869 --
M. Scott Simms:
En ce qui concerne le Fonds pour l’accessibilité, depuis septembre 2011: a) combien de demandes (i) ont été retenues et ont reçu du financement au titre du programme, (ii) ont été refusées lors de l’appel de propositions; b) en ce qui concerne les demandes retenues, quels étaient l’emplacement et la valeur de chaque projet par (i) province, (ii) circonscription électorale fédérale, (iii) numéro de dossier et de référence correspondant; c) quel est le coût total de l’administration du programme jusqu’à maintenant pour chaque année depuis 2011; d) combien de fonds reste-t-il; e) combien de projets de grande envergure menés au titre du programme ont permis ou permettront d’agrandir les centres actuels; f) quelle est la valeur des demandes de projets d’envergure retenues qui visaient (i) la construction de nouveaux centres, (ii) l’agrandissement de centres actuels; g) combien de demandes retenues pour des projets de moyenne envergure menés au titre du Fonds pour l’accessibilité visaient (i) la rénovation d’édifices, (ii) la modification de véhicules, (iii) l’amélioration de l’accessibilité à l’information et aux communications; h) quelle est la valeur des demandes retenues pour des projets de petite envergure menés au titre du Fonds pour l’accessibilité qui visaient (i) la rénovation d’édifices, (ii) la modification de véhicules, (iii) l’amélioration de l’accessibilité à l’information et aux communications; i) quelle est la raison la plus souvent donnée pour rejeter une demande; j) quelles sont les raisons données pour rejeter une demande et à quelle fréquence revient chacune des raisons; k) le programme sera-t-il reconduit l’année prochaine et si oui, quand le prochain appel de propositions sera-t-il lancé; l) en ce qui concerne les demandes rejetées, quels étaient l’emplacement et la valeur de chaque proposition par (i) province, (ii) circonscription électorale fédérale, (iii) numéro de dossier et de référence correspondant?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 873 --
Mme Jinny Jogindera Sims:
En ce qui concerne le Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires: a) combien de demandes d’avis relatifs au marché du travail ont été reçues de 2012 à 2014 inclusivement, ventilées par (i) année, (ii) mois, (iii) province; b) combien de demandes d’avis relatifs au marché du travail ont été acceptées de 2012 à 2014 inclusivement, ventilées par (i) année, (ii) mois, (iii) province; c) combien de demandes d’avis relatifs au marché du travail ont été reçues par année pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires hautement qualifiés, de 2012 à 2014 inclusivement; d) combien de demandes d’avis relatifs au marché du travail ont été reçues par année pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires peu qualifiés, de 2012 à 2014 inclusivement; e) combien de demandes d’avis relatifs au marché du travail ont été acceptées par année pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires hautement qualifiés, de 2012 à 2014 inclusivement; f) combien de demandes d’avis relatifs au marché du travail ont été acceptées par année pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires peu qualifiés, de 2012 à 2014 inclusivement; g) combien de demandes d’études d’impact sur le marché du travail ont été reçues en 2014, ventilées par (i) nombre total, (ii) mois, (iii) province; h) combien de demandes d’études d’impact sur le marché du travail ont été acceptées en 2014, ventilées par (i) nombre total, (ii) mois, (iii) province; i) combien de demandes d’études d’impact sur le marché du travail ont été reçues en 2014 pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires bien rémunérés; j) combien de demandes d’études d’impact sur le marché du travail ont été reçues en 2014 pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires à bas salaire; k) combien de demandes d’études d’impact sur le marché du travail ont été acceptées en 2014 pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires bien rémunérés; l) combien de demandes d’études d’impact sur le marché du travail ont été acceptées en 2014 pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires à bas salaire; m) combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés de 2012 à 2014 inclusivement, ventilés par (i) nombre total par année, (ii) mois, (iii) province; n) combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires hautement qualifiés, de 2012 à 2014 inclusivement; o) combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires peu qualifiés, de 2012 à 2014 inclusivement; p) combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés en 2014 pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires bien rémunérés; q) combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés en 2014 pour des travailleurs étrangers temporaires à bas salaire; r) combien d’employeurs comptant moins de dix employés ont obtenu une étude d’impact sur le marché du travail positive depuis juin 2014; s) combien d’employeurs comptant plus de dix employés ont obtenu une étude d’impact sur le marché du travail positive depuis juin 2014?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 874 --
Mme Jinny Jogindera Sims:
En ce qui concerne le Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires: a) quand Emploi et Développement social Canada commencera-t-il à rendre publiques les données sur le nombre de travailleurs étrangers temporaires approuvés et le nom des employeurs ayant obtenu une étude d’impact sur le marché du travail positive; b) pour quels codes de la Classification nationale des professions les employeurs ne sont-ils plus autorisés à recruter des travailleurs étrangers temporaires dans les régions où le taux de chômage dépasse les 6 %; c) quels sont le nombre et le nom des provinces et territoires ayant négocié de nouveaux accords accessoires concernant des exemptions relatives aux études d’impact sur le marché du travail avec le gouvernement fédéral; d) combien d’ententes de partage de l’information ont été signées avec les provinces et les territoires au sujet du Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires, et quels sont les territoires et les provinces signataires de ces ententes; e) combien d’ententes de partage de l’information entre des ministères fédéraux ont été revues depuis juin 2014; f) quand les nouvelles enquêtes de Statistique Canada sur les postes vacants et les salaires nationaux seront-elles effectuées; g) quand le nouveau service de jumelage emploi-travailleur sera-t-il mis en œuvre, et comment fonctionnera-t-il; h) quelle est la date limite pour permettre de poser sa candidature directement en ligne pour les offres proposées dans le Guichet emploi; i) quelles seront précisément les mesures prises pour protéger la confidentialité des renseignements personnels des demandeurs, si les agents du programme sont en mesure de voir le nombre de demandeurs et de déterminer la pertinence de leurs compétences; j) le commissaire à la protection de la vie privée a-t-il été consulté au sujet de l’inclusion de ces données dans le cadre de l’utilisation du Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires; k) combien d’enquêteurs doivent vérifier les informations transmises par l’intermédiaire de la ligne d’info-dénonciation confidentielle du gouvernement et du portail en ligne; l) quel est le montant du budget consacré à la ligne d’info-dénonciation confidentielle et au portail en ligne; m) combien de dénonciations été faites par l’intermédiaire de la ligne d’info-dénonciation confidentielle depuis avril, ventilées par mois; n) combien de dénonciations ont été faites par l’intermédiaire du portail en ligne depuis sa création, ventilées par mois; o) à combien d’enquêtes les informations reçues ont-elles conduit; p) combien d’employeurs ayant recours au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires ont fait l’objet d’une inspection en 2013-2014, ventilés par (i) mois, (ii) province; q) combien d’inspections menées en 2013-2014 ont donné lieu à des visites sur le terrain; r) quand le nouveau cadre réglementaire d’application de sanctions en cas de non-conformité sera-t-il en vigueur; s) combien de commentaires ont été reçus à propos du document de travail du gouvernement concernant le cadre réglementaire; t) combien de lettres de plainte le Ministère a-t-il reçues au sujet de l’augmentation des frais relatifs au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires; u) quand les nouveaux frais ouvrant droit à des privilèges s’appliqueront-ils; v) quand l’examen des catégories dispensées de l’étude d’impact sur le marché du travail sera-t-il terminé, et qui sera consulté dans le cadre de ce processus d’examen; w) combien d’erreurs relevées sur la liste qu’a le gouvernement des employeurs embauchant des travailleurs étrangers temporaires sont attribuables au fait que les employeurs ont transmis des informations erronées au gouvernement, et combien d’employeurs s’exposent à des sanctions à cause de cela; x) quelles mesures le Ministère prendra-t-il dans les cas où des Canadiens sont mis à pied après l’embauche de travailleurs étrangers temporaires?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 875 --
Mme Jinny Jogindera Sims:
En ce qui concerne le Tribunal de la sécurité sociale: a) combien d’appels sont-ils actuellement en attente d’être entendus à la Section de la sécurité du revenu (SSR), au total et ventilés par (i) prestations de pension de retraite et prestations au survivant du Régime de pensions du Canada, (ii) prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iii) Sécurité de la vieillesse; b) combien d’appels ont-ils été entendus par la SSR, au total et ventilés par (i) année, (ii) prestations de pension de retraite et prestations au survivant du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iii) prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iv) Sécurité de la vieillesse; c) combien d’appels entendus par la SSR ont-ils été accueillis, au total et ventilés par (i) année, (ii) prestations de pension de retraite et prestations au survivant du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iii) prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iv) Sécurité de la vieillesse; d) combien d’appels entendus par la SSR ont-ils été rejetés, au total et ventilés par (i) année, (ii) prestations de pension de retraite et prestations au survivant du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iii) prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iv) Sécurité de la vieillesse; e) combien d’appels entendus par la SSR ont-ils été rejetés de façon sommaire, au total et ventilés par (i) année, (ii) prestations de pension de retraite et prestations au survivant du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iii) prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iv) Sécurité de la vieillesse; f) combien d’appels entendus par la SST ont-ils été entendus en personne, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; g) combien d’appels entendus par la SSR ont-ils été entendus en téléconférence, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; h) combien d’appels entendus par la SSR ont-ils été entendus en vidéoconférence, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; i) combien d’appels entendus par la SSR ont-ils été entendus par écrit, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; j) combien de membres de la SSR assignés aux cas de prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada possèdent-ils (i) un diplôme d’un établissement d’enseignement postsecondaire reconnu, (ii) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en médecine, (iii) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en infirmerie, (iv) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en ergothérapie, (v) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en pharmacie, (vi) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en physiothérapie, (vii) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en psychologie, (viii) une expérience de travail des problèmes touchant les aînés ou les handicapés; k) combien de membres embauchés à la Section de l’Assurance emploi (SAE), mais actuellement assignés à la SSR, ont-ils été assignés aux cas de prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, et, parmi ces membres, combien possèdent-ils (i) un diplôme d’un établissement d’enseignement postsecondaire reconnu, (ii) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en médecine, (iii) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en infirmerie, (iv) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en ergothérapie, (v) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en pharmacie, (vi) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en physiothérapie, (vii) un permis d’exercice provincial ou territorial en psychologie, (viii) une expérience de travail des problèmes touchant les aînés ou les handicapés; l) combien d’appels relatifs à la sécurité du revenu sont-ils actuellement en attente d’être entendus par la Division d’appel (DA), au total et ventilés par (i) prestations de pension de retraite et prestations au survivant du Régime de pensions du Canada, (ii) prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iii) Sécurité de la vieillesse; m) combien d’appels relatifs à la sécurité du revenu ont-ils été entendus par la DA, au total et ventilés par (i) année, (ii) prestations de pension de retraite et prestations au survivant du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iii) prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iv) Sécurité de la vieillesse; n) combien d’appels relatifs à la sécurité du revenu entendu par la DA ont-ils été accueillis, au total et ventilés par (i) année, (ii) prestations de pension de retraite et prestations au survivant du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iii) prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iv) Sécurité de la vieillesse; o) combien d’appels relatifs à la sécurité du revenu entendu par la DA ont-ils été rejetés, au total et ventilés par (i) année, (ii) prestations de pension de retraite et prestations au survivant du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iii) prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iv) Sécurité de la vieillesse; p) combien d’appels relatifs à la sécurité du revenu entendus par la DA ont-ils été rejetés de façon sommaire, au total et ventilés par (i) année, (ii) prestations de pension de retraite et prestations au survivant du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iii) prestations d’invalidité du Régime de pensions du Canada, (iv) Sécurité de la vieillesse; q) combien d’appels relatifs à la sécurité du revenu entendus par la DA ont-ils été entendus en personne, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; r) combien d’appels relatifs à la sécurité du revenu entendu par la DA ont-ils été entendus en vidéoconférence, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; s) combien d’appels relatifs à la sécurité du revenu entendu par la DA ont-ils été entendus en téléconférence, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; t) combien d’appels relatifs à la sécurité du revenu entendu par la DA ont-ils été entendus par écrit, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; u) combien d’appels sont-ils actuellement en attente d’être entendus par la Section de l’Assurance emploi (SAE); v) combien d’appels ont-ils été entendus par la SAE, au total et ventilés par année; w) combien d’appels entendus par la SAE ont-ils été accueillis, au total et ventilés par année; x) combien d’appels entendus par la SAE ont-ils été rejetés, au total et ventilés par année; y) combien d’appels entendus par la SAE ont-ils été rejetés de façon sommaire, au total et ventilés par année; z) combien d’appels entendus par la SAE ont-ils été entendus en personne, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; aa) combien d’appels entendus par la SAE ont-ils été entendus en vidéoconférence, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; bb) combien d’appels entendus par la SAE ont-ils été entendus en téléconférence, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; cc) combien d’appels entendus par la SAE ont-ils été entendus par écrit, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; dd) combien d’appels relatifs à l’AE sont-ils actuellement en attente d’être entendus par la DA; ee) combien d’appels relatifs à l’AE ont-ils été entendus par la DA, au total et ventilés par année; ff) combien d’appels relatifs à l’AE entendus par la DA ont-ils été accueillis, au total et ventilés par année; gg) combien d’appels relatifs à l’AE entendus par la DA ont-ils été rejetés, au total et ventilés par année; hh) combien d’appels relatifs à l’AE entendus par la DA ont-ils été rejetés de façon sommaire, au total et ventilés par année; ii) combien d’appels relatifs à l’AE entendus par la DA ont-ils été entendus en personne, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; jj) combien d’appels relatifs à l’AE entendus par la DA ont-ils été entendus en vidéoconférence, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; kk) combien d’appels relatifs à l’AE entendus par la DA ont-ils été entendus en téléconférence, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; ll) combien d’appels relatifs à l’AE entendus par la DA ont-ils été entendus par écrit, ventilés par (i) année, (ii) appels accueillis, (iii) appels rejetés; mm) combien d’appels hérités de l’ancien système sont-ils actuellement en attente d’être entendus par la SSR; nn) combien d’appels hérités de l’ancien système sont-ils actuellement en attente d’être entendus par la SAE; oo) combien d’appels hérités de l’ancien système sont-ils actuellement en attente d’être entendus par la DA; pp) combien d’appels relatifs à l’Assurance-emploi hérités de l’ancien système sont-ils actuellement en attente d’être entendus par la DA; qq) combien de demandes d’audience accélérée pour cause de maladie terminale le Tribunal a-t-il reçues, ventilées par (i) année, (ii) demandes accordées, (iii) demandes refusées; rr) combien de demandes d’audience accélérée pour cause de difficultés financières le Tribunal a-t-il reçues, ventilées par (i) année, (ii) section, (iii) demandes accordées, (iv) demandes refusées; ss) combien de membres de la DA sont-ils (i) anglophones, (ii) francophones, (iii) bilingues; tt) combien de membres de la SSR sont-ils (i) anglophones, (ii) francophones, (iii) bilingues; uu) combien de membres de la SAE sont-ils (i) anglophones, (ii) francophones, (iii) bilingues; vv) quand des normes de rendement seront-elles mises en place au Tribunal; ww) quand le rapport du consultant sur la productivité sur le point d’être achevé doit-il être rendu public; xx) quand le Tribunal a-t-il commencé à assigner des cas à ses membres en 2013, ventilés par (i) SSR, (ii) SAE, (iii) DA; yy) à quel moment de 2013 tous les membres actuels se sont-ils vus assigner des cas, ventilés par (i) SSR, (ii) SAE, (iii) DA; zz) pour quelles raisons les anciens conseils arbitraux, juges-arbitres de l’Assurance-emploi, tribunaux de révision et commissions d’appel n’ont-ils pas été maintenus jusqu’à ce qu’ils aient achevé de traiter les cas qui leur avaient été confiés, aaa) pour quelles raisons a-t-on imposé un plafond au nombre de membres du Tribunal au moment de la création de ce dernier?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 876 --
M. John Rafferty:
En ce qui concerne les bureaux d’Anciens Combattants Canada : combien de clients ont été servis chaque année, de 2006 à 2014 inclusivement, dans chacun d'entre eux (à l’exception des bureaux de Service Canada, des cliniques de traitement des traumatismes liés au stress opérationnel, et des centres intégrés de soutien du personnel), y compris les neuf bureaux qui ont récemment fermé leurs portes à Thunder Bay, à Sydney, à Charlottetown, à Corner Brook, à Windsor, à Brandon, à Saskatoon, à Kelowna, et à Prince George?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 877 --
M. John Rafferty:
En ce qui concerne l’Initiative fédérale de développement économique dans le Nord de l’Ontario (FedNor): pour chaque exercice de 2004 à 2014 inclusivement, quelles sont les dépenses annuelles totales a) du Programme de développement du Nord de l’Ontario; b) du Programme de développement des collectivités; c) de l’Initiative de développement économique; d) du Fonds d’amélioration de l’infrastructure communautaire; e) de l’administration générale; f) de tout autre programme ou service temporaire ou permanent mis en œuvre par FedNor au cours de cette période qui ne figurent pas dans la liste ci-dessus?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 878 --
M. Arnold Chan:
En ce qui concerne la visite au Canada du président du Conseil européen et du président de la Commission européenne le 26 septembre 2014: a) à quel moment l’invitation a-t-elle d’abord été envoyée par le gouvernement; b) quel était le programme prévu de la visite; c) quel ministère était responsable de la visite; d) quel était le budget de la visite, ventilé par ministère; e) à quel moment l’étape à Toronto s’est-elle ajoutée à la visite; f) quel ministère a ajouté l’étape à Toronto; g) quels sont ceux qui figuraient sur la liste des invités à l’activité de Toronto, en précisant leur nom, leur entreprise ou organisme et le ministère ou le cabinet de ministre qui les a inscrits sur la liste; h) quels ont été les coûts de l’activité de Toronto, ventilés par (i) nourriture, (ii) location de salle, (iii) organisation, (iv) autres frais; i) le gouvernement a-t-il effectué une analyse d’optimisation des ressources de l’activité de Toronto et, dans l’affirmative, (i) quel en est le numéro de suivi, (ii) quelles en sont les conclusions; j) combien a coûté le vol des présidents à destination de l’Europe; k) le gouvernement a-t-il envisagé d’autres options que le vol de l’Aviation royale du Canada, et, dans l’affirmative, (i) quelles options ont été envisagées, (ii) pour quelle raison ont-elles été rejetées; l) quelle était la liste des passagers à bord du vol; m) l’avion a-t-il fait escale en route vers Bruxelles ou au retour; n) si la réponse au point m) est négative, comment le Premier ministre a-t-il effectué le voyage à partir de Toronto, et combien a coûté ce trajet s’il n’est pas compris dans le trajet vers Bruxelles; o) le gouvernement a-t-il offert à d’autres dignitaires en visite de voyager à bord d’un aéronef de l’Aviation royale du Canada depuis 2006 et, dans l’affirmative, à quels visiteurs; p) le lieu de l’activité de Toronto a-t-il été choisi par appel d’offres, (i) le cas échéant, quel était le numéro de la demande de proposition, (ii) sinon, quelle exception à la directive sur l’approvisionnement a été invoquée et à quel moment le Cabinet a-t-il approuvé cette exception; q) quels responsables gouvernementaux ont assisté à l’activité de Toronto, quel mode de transport ont-ils utilisé et combien le trajet a-t-il coûté; r) des passagers qui n’étaient pas des fonctionnaires ont-ils voyagé à bord du vol de l’Aviation royale du Canada d’Ottawa à Toronto et, dans l’affirmative, quels sont les noms de ces passagers et la raison de leur présence à bord du vol?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 879 --
M. Arnold Chan:
En ce qui concerne les prêts ou les subventions accordés aux entreprises depuis 2006: a) quel est le nom des entreprises bénéficiaires en précisant (i) le programme dans le cadre duquel le prêt a été accordé, (ii) le montant du prêt, (iii) le montant remboursé, (iv) le montant à rembourser, (v) le montant annoncé à l’origine, (vi) la raison de toute réduction ou radiation, (vii) le nombre d’emplois censés avoir été créés grâce au prêt, (viii) le nombre de postes effectivement créés après le consentement du prêt, (ix) le nombre d’emplois censés être maintenus grâce au prêt, (x) le nombre d’emplois effectivement maintenus; b) quelles mesures le gouvernement a-t-il prises à l’encontre des entreprises qui n’ont pas créé ou maintenu comme prévu les emplois?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 880 --
M. Arnold Chan:
En ce qui concerne les contrats de communication du gouvernement et des organismes depuis 2006: a) combien le gouvernement a-t-il dépensé en contrats de produits de communication; b) avec qui le gouvernement a-t-il conclu des contrats de rédaction, en précisant (i) le nom de l’organisation ou de la personne, (ii) le type de service offert, (iii) l’activité ou l’annonce sur laquelle portait le contrat, (iv) si le contrat a fait l’objet d’un appel d’offres, (v) à combien s’élevait le contrat, y compris si sa valeur a été modifiée, (vi) la date à laquelle le produit a été livré, (vii) la date de l’annonce; c) avec qui le gouvernement a-t-il conclu des contrats de formation en relations avec les médias, en précisant (i) le nom de l’organisation ou de la personne, (ii) les personnes qui ont reçu la formation, y compris leur titre, (iii) si le contrat a fait l’objet d’un appel d’offres, (iv) à combien s’élevait le contrat, y compris si sa valeur a été modifiée, (v) la date du contrat; d) avec qui le gouvernement a-t-il conclu des contrats de surveillance des médias, en précisant (i) le nom de l’organisation ou de la personne, (ii) la durée du contrat, (iii) le coût du contrat, (iv) le contrat a-t-il fait l’objet d’un appel d’offres; e) avec qui le gouvernement a-t-il conclu des contrats pour la distribution de communiqués, en précisant (i) le nom de l’organisation ou de la personne, (ii) la durée du contrat, (iii) le coût du contrat, (iv) si le contrat a fait l’objet d’un appel d’offres; f) avec qui le gouvernement a-t-il conclu des contrats d’organisation d’activités, en précisant (i) le nom de l’organisation ou de la personne, (ii) le type de service offert, (iii) l’activité ou l’annonce sur laquelle portait le contrat, (iv) si le contrat a fait l’objet d’un appel d’offres, (v) à combien s’élevait le contrat, y compris si sa valeur a été modifiée, (vi) la date à laquelle le produit a été livré, (vii) la date de l’annonce; g) avec qui le gouvernement a-t-il conclu des contrats pour tout autre produit de communication, en précisant (i) le nom de l’organisation ou de la personne, (ii) la durée du contrat, (iii) le coût du contrat, (iv) si le contrat a fait l’objet d’un appel d’offres, (v) sur quoi portait le contrat?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 881 --
M. Arnold Chan:
En ce qui concerne les biens de plus de 1 000 $ vendus par le gouvernement depuis 2007: a) quels biens ont été vendus, en précisant (i) le prix de vente du bien, (ii) le nom de l’acheteur, (iii) si des offres multiples ont été reçues, (iv) le prix payé par le gouvernement pour acquérir le bien, (v) le motif de la vente; b) a-t-on eu recours à un tiers pour la vente et, si tel est le cas, (i) quel est le nom du tiers, (ii) le contrat a-t-il fait l’objet d’un appel d’offres; c) si on a eu recours à un tiers, combien le tiers a-t-il été payé pour ses services; d) pour ce qui est des stocks du gouvernement qui ont été vendus, (i) quelle part des stocks a été vendue, (ii) quelle part le gouvernement détient-il encore; e) pour ce qui est de la vente d’entreprises privées dans lesquelles le gouvernement détient une participation, (i) le gouvernement détient-il encore une participation dans l’entreprise, (ii) le gouvernement a-t-il fait réaliser une étude de marché avant la vente et, si tel est le cas, par qui, (iii) quel a été la différence entre le montant prévu et le montant obtenu de la vente; f) quels revenus le bien a-t-il produits dans l’année avant sa vente; g) combien a-t-on dépensé pour faire la promotion de la vente de chaque bien?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 882 --
M. Robert Chisholm:
En ce qui concerne Service Canada : au cours des cinq derniers exercices, a) combien d’employés de l’unité de l’Intégrité ont été affectés chaque année (i) à l’assurance-emploi (AE), (ii) au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires (PTET), (iii) à la Sécurité de la vieillesse (SV), (iv) au Régime de pensions du Canda (RPC); b) quelle est la charge de travail annuelle moyenne des inspecteurs de l’AE; c) combien de paiements d’AE en trop ont été effectués chaque année, en nombre et en montant; d) combien de paiements d’AE en trop ont été perçus chaque année, en nombre et en montant; e) combien de paiements d’AE en trop ont été radiés chaque année, en nombre et en montant; f) quelle est la charge de travail annuelle moyenne des inspecteurs du RPC; g) combien de paiements du RPC en trop ont été effectués chaque année, en nombre et en montant; h) combien de paiements du RPC en trop ont été perçus chaque année, en nombre et en montant; i) combien de paiements du RPC en trop ont été radiés chaque année, en nombre et en montant; j) quelle est la charge de travail annuelle moyenne des inspecteurs de la SV; k) combien de paiements de la SV en trop ont été effectués chaque année, en nombre et en montant; l) combien de paiements de la SV en trop ont été perçus chaque année, en nombre et en montant; m) combien de paiements de la SV en trop ont été radiés chaque année, en nombre et en montant; n) quelle est la charge de travail moyenne des inspecteurs du PTET; o) combien d’employés de Service Canada sont en congé d'invalidité de longue durée chaque année, exception faite des congés parentaux, en tout, réparti par (i) centre d’appels de l’AE, (ii) centre de traitement de l’AE, (iii) centre d’appels du RPC et de la SV, (iv) centre de traitement de l’étude d'impact sur le marché du travail; p) quelle est la définition de l’indicateur de rendement « réduction des dépenses futures » pour la Section de l’intégrité, présenté dans le Rapport ministériel sur le rendement de 2013-2014; q) quel a été le rendement du ministère en matière de « réduction des dépenses futures » annuellement, réparti selon (i) l’AE (ii) le RPC, (iii) la SV?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 884 --
Mme Chrystia Freeland:
En ce qui concerne le Plan d'action sur les marchés mondiaux (PAMM) du gouvernement: a) quelles observations, propositions ou recommandations les intervenants ont-ils formulées au cours du processus de consultation; b) quels sont les dates, les heures et les lieux où ont eu lieu des réunions avec les particuliers ou les organisations consultés au cours de l’élaboration du PAMM; c) quel est le total des dépenses gouvernementales liées au processus de consultation du PAMM, y compris, sans toutefois s’y limiter, (i) les frais de déplacement, dont le transport, l’hébergement, la location de salles de réunion ou de matériel connexe, les repas et autres frais de déplacement, (ii) les dépenses de personnel, y compris les frais engagés pour le paiement des heures supplémentaires, (iii) tous services obtenus de consultants ou autres entrepreneurs, (iv) les autres dépenses pertinentes engagées, répartis selon tous les détails connexes; d) quels sont les titres et les numéros de dossier de tous les rapports, courriels et notes d’information produits à l’égard du processus d’élaboration et de consultation du PAMM?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 887 --
Mme Chrystia Freeland:
En ce qui concerne les employés fédéraux en poste à l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard et à Charlottetown, pour chaque exercice depuis 2005-2006 inclusivement, pour la province et la ville séparément, pour l’ensemble de la fonction publique et chaque ministère: a) combien d’employés y avait-il; b) combien d’employés ont été embauchés; c) combien d’employés ont pris leur retraite; d) combien d’employés ont quitté la fonction publique pour des raisons autres que la retraite en distinguant entre ceux qui sont partis pour cause (i) d'incapacité, (ii) de démission, (iii) de cessation d’emploi, (iv) de décès, (v) pour d’autres causes; e) combien de ces employés, en nombre et en pourcentage, étaient (i) à temps plein, (ii) à temps partiel, (iii) des étudiants, (iv) membres d’une autre catégorie d’emplois; f) quel était le niveau d’emploi des employés en nombre et en pourcentage; g) quel était le salaire moyen, médian et modal d’un employé à plein temps; h) combien recevaient les employés au titre (i) du salaire, (ii) des autres avantages?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 888 --
Mme Libby Davies:
En ce qui concerne Santé Canada: au cours des dix dernières années, a) combien d’inspecteurs en innocuité des médicaments Santé Canada a-t-il employés, ventilé par année; b) combien d’inspections Santé Canada a-t-il réalisées auprès des fabricants de médicaments au Canada, ventilé par année; c) combien de fabricants de médicaments inspectés au Canada ont reçu une lettre d’avertissement ou avis de violation de Santé Canada, ventilé par année; d) combien de fabricants de médicaments inspectés au Canada ont fait l’objet de pénalités, ventilé par année; e) combien de fabricants de médicaments inspectés au Canada ont fait l’objet d’une interdiction, ventilé par année; f) combien d’inspections Santé Canada a-t-il réalisées auprès des fabricants de médicaments à l’étranger, ventilé par année; g) combien de fabricants de médicaments inspectés à l’étranger ont reçu une lettre d’avertissement ou avis de violation de Santé Canada, ventilé par année; h) combien de fabricants de médicaments inspectés à l’étranger ont fait l’objet de pénalités, ventilé par année; i) combien de fabricants de médicaments inspectés à l’étranger ont fait l’objet d’une interdiction, ventilé par année; j) combien d’avis de violation relatifs à des entreprises actives au Canada Santé Canada a-t-il reçus d’organismes de réglementation étrangers, ventilé par année; k) combien de fabricants de médicaments Santé Canada a-t-il inspectés à la suite d’un avis reçu d’un organisme de réglementation étranger, ventilé par année; l) combien d’essais cliniques Santé Canada a-t-il inspectés, ventilé par année; m) combien d’essais cliniques ont reçu une lettre d’avertissement ou un avis de violation de Santé Canada à la suite d’une inspection, ventilé par année; n) combien d’essais cliniques ont été arrêtés par Santé Canada à la suite d’une inspection, ventilé par année; o) combien d’enquêtes Santé Canada a-t-il menées sur la promotion de la prescription de médicaments pour usage non conforme à l’étiquette par les fabricants de médicaments, ventilé par année; p) combien d’amendes ou de pénalités Santé Canada a-t-il imposées pour la promotion de l’usage non conforme à l’étiquette, ventilé par année; q) combien de rapports sur des effets secondaires de médicaments prescrits pour usage non conforme à l’étiquette Santé Canada a-t-il reçus, ventilé par année; r) quand Santé Canada commencera-t-il à consigner les données sur les effets secondaires de médicaments prescrits pour usage non conforme à l’étiquette dans ses bases de données publiques?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 890 --
L'hon. Stéphane Dion:
En ce qui concerne le litige judiciaire opposant Daniel Christopher Scott, Mark Douglas Campbell, Gavin Michael David Flett, Kevin Albert Matthew Berry, Bradley Darren Quast et Aaron Michael Bedard, demandeurs, et le procureur général du Canada, intimé: a) quels ont été les coûts totaux pour le gouvernement de l’instruction de cette affaire, ventilés par dépense et (i) frais engagés avant le 6 septembre 2013, (ii) frais engagés depuis le 6 septembre 2013; b) qui le gouvernement a-t-il consulté pendant la procédure, en précisant (i) le nom (ii) la date; c) quels sont les numéros de suivi interne de tous les documents, communications ou notes d’information relatifs à l’affaire susmentionnée; d) à combien s’élèvent les dépenses que le gouvernement compte encore consacrer à ce dossier?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 892 --
L'hon. Geoff Regan:
En ce qui concerne le ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Commerce international et, subséquemment, le ministère des Affaires étrangères, du Commerce et du Développement : durant la période de 2004 à 2014, quel est le nombre total de ses employés qui ont été affectés à l’étranger pour dix années consécutives ou plus?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 893 --
M. Malcolm Allen:
En ce qui concerne la Commission canadienne du blé (CCB) provisoire: a) quelle est l’échelle salariale de la haute direction de la CCB provisoire; b) quelles informations le gouvernement possède-t-il au sujet des primes, avantages, honoraires et autres formes de rémunération reçoivent les membres de la haute direction; c) quelles informations le gouvernement possède-t-il au sujet des primes, avantages, honoraires et autres formes de rémunération recevront les membres de la haute direction lorsque la CCB provisoire sera transférée à son nouveau propriétaire; d) quels sont les engagements pris à l’égard des primes, avantages, honoraires et autres formes de rémunération que recevront les membres de la haute direction après le transfert de la CCB provisoire à son nouveau propriétaire?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 894 --
M. Malcolm Allen:
En ce qui concerne les modifications aux lois canadiennes sur la sécurité alimentaire: a) quel est l’état des règlements exigeant un meilleur étiquetage des risques à la sécurité alimentaire causés par l’attendrissement des viandes et autres techniques de transformation connexes; b) quelles communications et consultations ont été effectuées auprès de l’industrie au cours de la dernière année au sujet de ces nouveaux règlements; c) quel est le taux de respect des nouveaux règlements; d) quel est l’état des nouveaux règlements visant à améliorer la traçabilité des fruits et légumes frais et des produits de viande du Canada; e) quel est l’état de la mise en œuvre des règlements découlant du projet de loi S-11, Loi sur la salubrité des aliments au Canada; f) quels sont les coûts qu’a engendré l’élaboration des nouveaux règlements découlant du projet de loi S-11; g) quel est l’état de la mise en œuvre de toutes les recommandations visant l’amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire contenues dans le rapport Weatherill; h) quels sont les noms et les coûts des programmes de sécurité alimentaire qui prendront fin en 2014 ou en 2015; i) qui a-t-on consulté en ce qui concerne les nouveaux règlements relatifs à l’application du projet de loi S-11?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 895 --
M. Andrew Cash:
En ce qui concerne le Programme de mobilité internationale: a) quand Citoyenneté et Immigration Canada (CIC) commencera-t-il à prendre l’initiative d’afficher davantage de données, quelles données seront publiées et à quelle fréquence; b) quand seront perçus les nouveaux frais relatifs aux activités de surveillance de la conformité pour les permis de travail visant un employeur donné et à quel niveau les frais seront-ils établis; c) quand les nouveaux frais ouvrant droit à un privilège pour les détenteurs de permis de travail ouverts seront-ils mis en place; d) combien d’employés de CIC sont affectés aux enquêtes portant sur le respect de la conformité par les employeurs; e) combien d’employeurs ont fait l’objet d’une enquête en 2014, ventilé par mois; f) quel régime de pénalités a été mis en place pour sanctionner les employeurs qui enfreignent les règles; g) combien d’employeurs ont fait l’objet de pénalités ou de sanctions pour avoir enfreint les règles; h) combien d’enquêtes ont comporté une inspection sur place; i) combien d’ententes de partage de l’information ont été signées avec d’autres ministères fédéraux; j) combien d’ententes de partage de l’information ont été signées avec des gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux, et de quels provinces et territoires s’agit-il; k) quels volets ont vu leurs directives ou exigences modifiées depuis juin 2014; l) l’examen des volets exemptés de l’étude d’impact sur le marché du travail (EIMT) mené afin d’établir s’ils doivent y être soumis a-t-il déjà eu lieu et, dans l’affirmative, quelles en sont les conclusions; m) quelles mesures ont été prises pour encourager le programme Expérience internationale Canada auprès des Canadiens; n) quel est le nouveau salaire minimal des employés ayant des connaissances spécialisées mutés à l’intérieur d’une même société et quand a-t-il été mis en place?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 896 --
M. Andrew Cash:
En ce qui concerne les Programmes de mobilité internationale, de 2006 à 2014: a) chaque année, combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés dans le cadre de l’Accord de libre-échange nord-américain (ALENA), en tout et par pays d’origine; b) chaque année, combien de Canadiens ont travaillé aux États-Unis et au Mexique dans le cadre de l’ALENA; c) quels autres accords de libre-échange (ALE) comprennent des dispositions sur la mobilité de la main-d’œuvre, et sous chacun de ces ALE, combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés chaque année, en tout et par pays d’origine; d) chaque année, combien de Canadiens ont travaillé dans d’autres pays dans le cadre d’un ALE, et dans quels pays ont-ils travaillé; e) chaque année, combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés dans le cadre de l’Accord général sur le commerce des services (AGCS), en tout et par pays d’origine; f) chaque année, combien de Canadiens ont travaillé à l’étranger dans le cadre de l’AGCS, et dans quels pays ont-ils travaillé; g) quels accords internationaux permettent aux travailleurs de travailler pour un employeur canadien au Canada sans étude d'impact sur le marché du travail, et sous chacun de ces accords, combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés chaque année, en tout et par pays d’origine; h) chaque année, combien de Canadiens ont travaillé dans d’autres pays dans le cadre de ces mêmes accords internationaux, et dans quels pays ont-ils travaillé; i) quels accords provinciaux permettent aux travailleurs de travailler pour un employeur canadien au Canada sans étude d’impact sur le marché du travail, et sous chacun de ces accords, combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés chaque année, en tout et par pays d’origine; j) quels programmes ou accords prévoyant la réciprocité en matière d’emploi permettent aux travailleurs de travailler pour un employeur canadien au Canada sans étude d’impact sur le marché du travail, et sous chacun de ces programmes ou accords, combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés chaque année, en tout et par pays d’origine; k) chaque année, combien de Canadiens ont travaillé dans d’autres pays dans le cadre de ces mêmes programmes ou accords de réciprocité, et dans quels pays ont-ils travaillé; l) quels programmes ou accords de prestations d’emploi permettent aux travailleurs de travailler pour un employeur canadien au Canada sans étude d’impact sur le marché du travail, et sous chacun de ces programmes ou accords, combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés chaque année, en tout et par pays d’origine; m) chaque année, combien de Canadiens ont travaillé dans d’autres pays dans le cadre de programmes ou d’accords de prestations d’emploi, et dans quels pays ont-ils travaillé; n) quels programmes ou accords de recherches ou d’études permettent aux travailleurs de travailler pour un employeur canadien au Canada sans étude d’impact sur le marché du travail, et sous chacun de ces programmes ou accords, combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés chaque année, en tout et par pays d’origine; o) quels programmes ou accords relèvent des « autres intérêts canadiens », et sous chacun de ces programmes ou accords, combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés chaque année, en tout et par pays d’origine; p) quels programmes ou accords relèvent des « autres détenteurs de permis de travail sans avis relatif au marché du travail », et sous chacun de ces programmes ou accords, combien de permis de travail ont été délivrés chaque année, en tout et par pays d’origine; q) chaque année, combien de conjoints ont reçu un permis de travail, en tout et par pays d’origine?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 897 --
M. Andrew Cash:
En ce qui concerne Expérience Internationale Canada, pour les années 2013 et 2014: a) avec quels pays le Canada avait-il un accord; b) quels étaient les contingents réciproques; c) combien de Canadiens se sont rendus dans chaque pays dans le cadre de l’accord; d) combien de jeunes de chaque pays sont venus au Canada dans le cadre de l’accord; e) quelles mesures le gouvernement a-t-il prises pour faire connaître le programme aux Canadiens; f) quelles mesures le gouvernement a-t-il prises pour réduire les obstacles pour les participants canadiens dans certains pays?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 898 --
Mme Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
En ce qui concerne l’Entrée express: a) qui le gouvernement a-t-il consulté au sujet de la création et de la conception du programme, et à quelles dates; b) qui le gouvernement a-t-il consulté pour l’élaboration du système de points, et à quelles dates; c) quelles études le gouvernement a-t-il réalisées avant de décider de mettre en place l’Entrée express; d) quelles études le gouvernement a-t-il réalisées pour concevoir le programme; e) la commissaire à la protection de la vie privée a-t-elle été consultée au sujet de la conception du programme; f) quelle est la date cible pour jumeler les immigrants éventuels aux employeurs potentiels; g) quelles précautions seront prises pour s’assurer que les employeurs essaient d'abord d’embaucher des Canadiens admissibles avant de se tourner vers des immigrants éventuels; h) comment le système trouvera-t-il des candidats éventuels pour les employeurs; i) à quelle fréquence se fera la sélection des candidats; j) qui décidera du nombre de candidats sélectionnés à chaque sélection; k) qui décidera de la manière dont la sélection des candidats sera répartie entre les trois volets d’immigration de l’Entrée express; l) quand aura lieu la première évaluation de l’Entrée express; m) quel est le budget prévu pour les trois prochaines années?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 899 --
Mme Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
En ce qui concerne le Programme concernant les aides familiaux résidants: a) combien le gouvernement a-t-il reçu de demandes de résidence permanente dans le cadre du Programme concernant les aides familiaux résidants pour chaque année de 2010 à 2014 inclusivement; b) pour chacune de ces années, combien de demandes provenaient de fournisseurs qui avaient prodigué des soins à des enfants, et combien provenaient de fournisseurs qui avaient prodigué des soins à des aînés ou à des personnes ayant un handicap; c) combien d’employés ont été affectés au traitement des demandes de résidence permanente dans le cadre du Programme concernant les aides familiaux résidants chaque année; d) qui le gouvernement a-t-il consulté avant de modifier le programme et à quelle date les consultations ont elles eu lieu; e) le gouvernement a-t-il effectué des études sur les répercussions d’un plafonnement applicable aux demandes de résidence permanente présentées dans le cadre du Programme concernant les aides familiaux résidants; f) les aides familiaux pourront-ils étudier au Canada avant d’obtenir leur résidence permanente et, dans l’affirmative, pourront-ils payer les mêmes frais de scolarité que les étudiants canadiens; g) quelles sont les exigences actuelles en matière d’affichage pour les demandeurs au titre d’une Étude de l’impact sur le marché du travail?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 900 --
Mme Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
En ce qui concerne les demandes de statut de réfugié de 2010 à 2014: a) quel est le délai moyen de traitement des demandes, ventilé par (i) année, (ii) centre de traitement, (iii) réfugiés parrainés par le gouvernement, (iv) réfugiés parrainés par le secteur privé; b) pour chaque année, où étaient situés les centres de traitement; c) pour chaque année et chaque centre, combien d'employés travaillaient au traitement des demandes de statut de réfugié?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 901 --
Mme Kirsty Duncan:
En ce qui concerne l’activité intitulée « Force des filles. Force du monde. », organisée par le gouvernement à Toronto le 22 octobre 2014: a) qui, au sein du gouvernement, était responsable de l’organisation de l’activité; b) quel a été le budget total de l’activité, (i) l’activité a-t-elle dépassé son budget, (ii) dans l’affirmative, quel a été le dépassement de coût, (iii) quelles ont été les dépenses imprévues, (iv) si l’activité a été annulée, quel montant d’argent le gouvernement a-t-il pu recouvrer, (v) si l’activité a été annulée, quel montant d’argent le gouvernement n’a-t-il pas pu recouvrer; c) si l’activité a été annulée, a-t-elle été reportée en 2013, et, dans l’affirmative, (i) quelle a été la nouvelle date de l’activité, (ii) quel a été le budget prévu de la nouvelle activité; d) quel a été le coût total de location du lieu à la Central Technical School; e) combien de noms figuraient sur la liste définitive des invités et quels étaient ces noms; f) le gouvernement a-t-il payé les frais de déplacement des visiteurs internationaux; g) comment la Central Technical School a-t-elle été choisie comme lieu de l’activité, (i) à quelle date l’école a-t-elle été contactée pour la première fois au sujet du Sommet, (ii) combien d’autres endroits les organisateurs de l’activité ont-ils contactés en dehors de la Central Technical School; h) quel a été le coût total de la sécurité pour l’activité; i) quel a été le coût total des repas et de l’hébergement pour l’activité; j) l’activité a-t-elle été payée à même le Trésor public?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 902 --
Mme Kirsty Duncan :
En ce qui concerne le financement gouvernemental : au cours de chaque exercice depuis 2011-2012, a) quels sont les détails relatifs à toutes les subventions et contributions et à tous les prêts accordés à tout organisme ou groupe des circonscriptions de Etobicoke-Nord, Etobicoke-Centre, et Etobicoke—Lakeshore, c’est-à-dire dans chaque cas (i) le nom du bénéficiaire, (ii) la municipalité dans laquelle est situé le bénéficiaire, (iii) la date, (iv) le montant, (v) le ministère ou l’organisme octroyeur, (vi) le programme dans le cadre duquel la subvention, la contribution ou le prêt ont été accordés, (vii) la nature ou le but; b) pour chaque subvention, contribution et prêt mentionnés en a), un communiqué l’annonçant a-t-il été publié, et, dans l’affirmative, quels sont (i) la date, (ii) le titre, (iii) le numéro de dossier du communiqué?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 903 --
Mme Kirsty Duncan:
En ce qui concerne la « Mise en œuvre de la Déclaration et du Programme d’action de Beijing (1995) et les textes issus de la vingt-troisième session extraordinaire de l’Assemblée générale (2000) dans le contexte du vingtième anniversaire de la quatrième Conférence mondiale sur les femmes et de l’adoption de la Déclaration et du Programme d’action de Beijing: examen national du Canada, juin 2014 » du gouvernement: a) quel est le nom, le poste, l’organisation ou l’affiliation de tous les intervenants consultés pendant la création de l’examen; b) quelles présentations, propositions ou recommandations les intervenants ont-ils faites au cours du processus de consultation; c) à quelles dates, à quelles heures et à quels endroits les réunions tenues avec les personnes ou les organisations consultées pendant la création de l’examen ont-elles eu lieu; d) quel est le total de toutes les dépenses gouvernementales liées au processus de consultation sur le plan, y compris, sans s’y limiter, (i) les frais de déplacement, y compris le transport, l’hébergement, la location de salles de réunion et de matériel, les repas et les autres dépenses liées au déplacement, (ii) les coûts liés au temps du personnel, y compris toute rémunération des heures supplémentaires, (iii) les services et autres formes de soutien fournis par les consultants et d’autres entrepreneurs, (iv) les autres dépenses pertinentes, ventilées par détails connexes; e) quels sont les titres et les noms de dossiers de tous les rapports, courriels et notes d’information préparées dans le cadre du processus d’élaboration et de consultation mené pour mettre la dernière touche à la création de l’examen; f) combien de fonds ont été consacrés au déploiement de cette proposition aux exercices 2014-2015 et 2015-2016?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 904 --
Mme Kirsty Duncan :
En ce qui concerne le Plan d’action pour contrer la violence familiale et les crimes violents à l’endroit des femmes et des filles autochtones (le Plan) du gouvernement: a) quels sont les noms, titres, organisations ou affiliations de tous les intervenants consultés pendant la création du Plan; b) quelles présentations, propositions ou recommandations ces intervenants ont ils faites pendant le processus de consultation; c) quels sont les dates, heures et lieux des réunions avec les particuliers ou organisations consultés pendant la création du Plan; d) quel est le total des dépenses gouvernementales concernant le processus de consultation lié au Plan, y compris, mais sans s’y limiter, (i) les déplacements, soit le transport, l’hébergement, la location de salles de réunion ou d’équipement, la nourriture et autres dépenses, (ii) le temps du personnel, y compris les heures supplémentaires payées, liées au déplacement, (iii) les services ou autre aide obtenus auprès d’experts-conseils ou d’autres entrepreneurs, (iv) autres dépenses pertinentes, ventilées avec détails; e) quels sont les titres et noms de fichiers de tous les rapports, courriels et notes d’information préparés relativement au processus de consultation et d’élaboration en vue de la mise au point du Plan; f) quelle est la ventilation par exercice et montant des 25 millions de dollars promis pour le Plan; g) quelles sont les dates limites; h) quels sont les dates, heures et lieux des réunions avec les divers représentants provinciaux et territoriaux consultés pendant la création du Plan; i) quelles sont les dates limites prévues pour les plans de sécurité du gouvernement énoncés dans le Plan; j) durant quels exercices Sécurité publique Canada commencera-t-elle à distribuer le 1,72 million de dollars pour aider les communautés autochtones à mettre sur pied des plans de sécurité; k) durant quels exercices Justice Canada commencera-t-elle à distribuer les 500 000 $ prévus pour aider les communautés autochtones à rompre le cycle intergénérationnel de violence; l) durant quels exercices Condition féminine Canada commencera-t-elle à distribuer les 5 millions de dollars pour aider les Premières Nations, les Inuits et les Métis à dénoncer et à prévenir la violence faite aux femmes autochtones, et quelle est la ventilation par année?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 905 --
L'hon. John McCallum:
En ce qui concerne les documents préparés pour les administrateurs généraux et leur personnel du 19 septembre 2014 à aujourd’hui: pour chaque document d’information préparé, i) quelle date figure sur le document, ii) quel est le titre ou le sujet du document, iii) quel est le numéro de suivi interne du Ministère?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 906 --
L'hon. John McCallum:
En ce qui concerne les documents préparés pour les sous ministres adjoints du 19 septembre 2014 à aujourd’hui: pour chaque document d’information préparé, i) quelle date figure sur le document, ii) quel est le titre ou le sujet du document, iii) quel est le numéro de suivi interne du Ministère?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 907 --
L'hon. John McCallum:
En ce qui concerne les documents préparés pour les ministres et leur personnel du 19 septembre 2014 à aujourd’hui: pour chaque document d’information préparé, i) quelle date figure sur le document, ii) quel est le titre ou le sujet du document, iii) quel est le numéro de suivi interne du Ministère?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 908 --
Mme Sadia Groguhé:
En ce qui concerne le Programme des travailleurs agricoles saisonniers: a) combien d'employés sont actuellement affectés au traitement des demandes d'Études d'impact sur le Marché du Travail (EIMT); b) pour les années 2011 à 2013, combien d'employés étaient affectés au traitement des demandes d'Avis relatifs au Marché du Travail (AMT); c) en moyenne, quel est le délai de traitement d'une demande d'EIMT; d) en moyenne, quel était le délai de traitement des demandes d'AMT pour les années 2011 à 2013; e) pour les années 2011 à 2014, combien de demandes ont été traitées en plus de deux mois; f) quel est actuellement le délai moyen de traitement d'une demande de permis de travail; g) pour les années 2011 à 2014, quel était le délai moyen de traitement d'une demande de permis de travail; h) combien de plaintes a reçu le gouvernement concernant des travailleurs agricoles saisonniers qui n'étaient pas arrivés alors que la récolte était commencée; i) combien de plaintes a reçu le gouvernement concernant des travailleurs agricoles saisonniers qui n'étaient pas arrivés alors que la récolte était terminée?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 909 --
Mme Jinny Jogindera Sims:
En ce qui concerne Service Canada: a) qui est responsable de la gestion des retours d’appel de l’assurance-emploi (AE); b) quelle est la norme de service pour les retours d’appel de l’AE; c) pour les cinq derniers exercices, quelle a été la norme de service atteinte pour les retours d’appel de l’AE; d) pour les deux derniers exercices, quelle a été la norme de service atteinte pour les retours d’appel de l’AE, ventilée par mois; e) pour les cinq derniers exercices, quel a été le délai moyen en jours pour un retour d’appel de l’AE; f) qui est responsable de la gestion des retours d’appel du Régime de pensions du Canada (RPC) et de la Sécurité de la vieillesse (SV); g) quelle est la norme de service pour les retours d’appel du RPC et de la SV; h) pour les cinq derniers exercices, quelle a été la norme de service atteinte pour les retours d’appel du RPC et de la SV; i) pour les deux derniers exercices, quelle a été la norme de service atteinte pour les retours d’appel du RPC et de la SV, ventilée par mois; j) pour les cinq derniers exercices, quel a été le délai moyen en jours pour un retour d’appel du RPC et de la SV; k) qui a pris la décision de faire passer la norme de service des centres d’appel de l’AE de 180 secondes à dix minutes; l) qui a été consulté en ce qui a trait à la décision de faire passer la norme de service des centres d’appel de l’AE de 180 secondes à dix minutes; m) qui a pris la décision de faire passer la norme de service des centres d’appel du RPC et de la SV de 180 secondes à dix minutes; n) qui a été consulté en ce qui a trait à la décision de faire passer la norme de service des centres d’appel du RPC et de la SV de 180 secondes à dix minutes?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 910 --
Mme Libby Davies:
En ce qui concerne Santé Canada : pour chacune des dix dernières années, a) combien de plaintes ont été reçues concernant la publicité des produits pharmaceutiques destinée aux consommateurs; b) combien d’amendes ont été imposées pour des infractions aux règles régissant la publicité relative aux produits pharmaceutiques s’adressant aux consommateurs; c) combien de lettres d’avertissement ou de citations ont fait suite à des infractions aux règles régissant la publicité relative aux produits pharmaceutiques s’adressant aux consommateurs; d) quelles entreprises ont été jugées coupables d’avoir enfreint les règles régissant la publicité relative aux produits pharmaceutiques s’adressant aux consommateurs?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 912 --
M. Rodger Cuzner :
En ce qui concerne l’inadmissibilité aux prestations de maladie de l’assurance-emploi des parents (demandeurs) qui sont tombés malades ou qui ont été blessés pendant qu’ils recevaient des prestations parentales, au motif qu’ils n’étaient pas autrement disponibles pour travailler au sens de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi, de l'exercice 2003-2004 à 2013-2014: a) dans chacun de ces exercices, combien de demandeurs (i) se sont vus refuser des prestations de maladie de l’assurance-emploi par le gouvernement au motif qu’ils n’étaient pas autrement disponibles pour travailler, (ii) ont appelé du rejet de leur demande de prestations de maladie auprès du conseil arbitral; b) combien de bénéficiaires de prestations parentales se sont vus refuser des prestations de maladie entre la décision du juge-arbitre du Canada sur les prestations (CUB) 77039 et le 24 mars 2013; c) Ressources humaines et Développement des compétences Canada (RHDCC) a-t-il interjeté appel de la décision CUB 77039, et sinon, pourquoi pas; d) si RHDCC n’a pas interjeté appel de la décision, a-t-il accepté celle-ci, et sinon, pourquoi pas; e) une décision CUB qui n’est pas infirmée en appel devient-elle définitive et exécutoire pour le gouvernement; f) quelles étaient les conséquences pour RHDCC de l’interprétation de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi donnée par le juge-arbitre dans cette décision marquante; g) quel processus RHDCC devait-il suivre à la suite de la décision CUB (ou de l’appel de cette décision) afin de modifier la mise en œuvre de la politique de l’assurance-emploi visée; h) quelle était l’incidence spécifique de la décision CUB 77039 sur la politique de RHDCC relative à l’admissibilité aux prestations de maladie de demandeurs en congé parental; i) par suite de la décision CUB 77039, quelles directives spécifiques ont été données par RHDCC en matière de politique et, si aucune directive n’a été donnée, pourquoi pas; j) le gouvernement a-t-il entrepris des analyses ou études au sujet de l’incidence de la décision CUB 77039 et, dans l’affirmative, quels sont les titres, numéros de dossier et résultats de ces analyses ou études; k) RHDCC a-t-il refusé des prestations de maladie à des demandeurs entre la décision CUB 77039 et le 24 mars 2013, et dans l’affirmative, pour quel motif; l) combien de demandeurs étaient en instance d’appel auprès du conseil arbitral et du juge-arbitre de l’assurance-emploi du rejet par le gouvernement de leur demande de prestations de maladie pendant qu’ils étaient en congé parental en date du 24 mars 2013; m) combien des demandeurs en l) ont conclu un règlement avec le gouvernement par la suite, (i) quel était le coût moyen du règlement par demandeur, (ii) quel était le total des frais juridiques liés au règlement avec les demandeurs, (iii) quel était le coût total du règlement; n) quelle était la justification de la décision de conclure un règlement avec les demandeurs en m); o) à quel moment le gouvernement a-t-il décidé de conclure un règlement et a-t-il effectivement conclu un règlement avec les demandeurs décrits en m); p) la décision d’élargir l’accès aux prestations de maladie annoncée dans le projet de loi C-44, Loi visant à aider les familles dans le besoin, faisait-elle directement suite à la décision CUB 77039; q) les parlementaires ont-ils été informés de la décision CUB 77039 soit pendant la séance d’information technique que le gouvernement a donnée aux parlementaires le 26 septembre 2012, soit pendant l’examen législatif du projet de loi C-44, Loi visant à aider les familles dans le besoin, sinon, pourquoi pas; r) à quel moment le gouvernement s’est-il rendu compte que les modifications législatives de 2002 aux dispositions relatives au cumul des prestations d’assurance-emploi que prévoyait le projet de loi C-49, Loi d’exécution du budget de 2001, visaient à rendre admissibles aux prestations de maladie les femmes qui tombent malades pendant qu’elles reçoivent des prestations parentales et quelles mesures a-t-il prises à cet égard; s) quel est le coût total jusqu’à présent des services juridiques liés à l’affaire McCrea c. Canada (numéro de dossier de la Cour fédérale T-210-12); t) quelles sont les références détaillées de tous les documents de RHDCC relatifs à la décision CUB 77039 qui ont été produits à l’intention du ou de la Ministre ou de son personnel, y compris les notes d’information, analyses et rapports, ventilées par (i) date, (ii) titre ou sujet, (iii) numéro de suivi interne du Ministère; u) après que les décisions CUB 77039 et CUB 79390A eurent établi que des prestations de maladie devaient être versées à Natalya Rougas et Jane Kittmer, pourquoi le gouvernement a-t-il affirmé dans des communiqués relatifs au projet de loi C-44, Loi visant à aider les familles dans le besoin, datés du 20 septembre 2012, du 2 octobre 2012, du 20 novembre 2012, du 12 décembre 2012 et du 10 mars 2013 qu’« à l’heure actuelle, les personnes qui reçoivent des prestations parentales dans le cadre du régime d’assurance-emploi ne sont pas admissibles à des prestations de maladie parce qu’elles ne sont pas considérées, sans cela, comme disponibles pour travailler »?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 913 --
L'hon. Wayne Easter:
En ce qui concerne le commerce international dans le contexte du Sommet Canada-Union européenne qui a eu lieu à Ottawa et à Toronto les 25 et 26 septembre 2014: quels sont les détails de tous les contrats de fournitures ou de services liés au sommet en précisant pour chacun: (i) le nom de l’entrepreneur, (ii) les fournitures ou les services offerts, (iii) le montant du contrat, (iv) si le contrat a été conclu à la suite d’un appel d’offres ouvert?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 914 --
L'hon. Judy Sgro:
En ce qui concerne le commerce international dans le contexte du Sommet Canada-Union européenne qui a eu lieu à Ottawa et à Toronto les 25 et 26 septembre 2014: a) combien ont dépensé en frais de déplacement les fonctionnaires de l’actuel ministère des Affaires étrangères, du Commerce et du Développement pour se rendre à Ottawa ou n’importe où en Europe, en précisant l’endroit, ventilé par (i) ministère, (ii) fonctionnaire, (iii) postes de dépense; b) combien a-t-on dépensé à Ottawa et à Toronto au titre des réceptions, conférences de presse, cérémonies de signature, réunions officielles ou réunions bilatérales pour les fonctionnaires canadiens et européens, ventilé par (i) ministère, (ii) fonctionnaire, (iii) postes de dépense?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 916 --
M. Marc Garneau :
En ce qui concerne les affaires étrangères: a) quels sont les dates, les endroits et les participants de toutes les réunions tenues entre le 1er mars 2010 et le 4 décembre 2014 qui ont porté sur le Plan d’action sur les marchés mondiaux et auxquelles ont assisté le ministre des Affaires étrangères, son personnel ou des représentants de son Ministère; b) pour chaque document d’information préparé pour le Ministre, son personnel ou ses représentants et concernant ces réunions, qu’il ait été produit avant ou après une réunion, quels en sont (i) la date, (ii) le titre ou le sujet, (iii) le numéro de suivi interne du Ministère?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 917 --
L'hon. Judy Sgro:
En ce qui concerne le commerce international: a) quels sont les dates, les endroits et les participants de toutes les réunions tenues entre le 1er mars 2010 et le 4 décembre 2014 qui ont porté sur la Stratégie de 2014 en matière de responsabilité sociale des entreprises et auxquelles ont assisté le ministre du Commerce international, son personnel ou des représentants de son Ministère; b) pour chaque document d’information préparé pour le Ministre, son personnel ou ses représentants et concernant ces réunions, qu’il ait été produit avant ou après une réunion, quels en sont (i) la date, (ii) le titre ou le sujet, (iii) le numéro de suivi interne du Ministère?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 918 --
L'hon. Wayne Easter:
En ce qui concerne la Stratégie de défense Le Canada d’abord (SDCD): a) la stratégie consiste-t-elle à (i) acquérir trois appareils de transport aérien stratégique et les stationner à la Base des Forces canadiennes (BFC) Trenton, (ii) doubler la taille de l’Équipe d'intervention en cas de catastrophe, (iii) acquérir trois brise-glace lourds armés et les stationner dans la région d’Iqaluit, (iv) aménager une installation d’accostage civile et militaire en eau profonde pouvant accueillir les trois brise-glace visés en (iii), (v) mettre en place un système de capteurs sous-marins, (vi) construire un centre d’instruction militaire à Cambridge Bay, (vii) stationner de nouveaux escadrons d’engins aériens télécommandés à longue portée aux BFC de Goose Bay et de Comox, (viii) stationner de nouveaux aéronefs à voilure fixe de recherche et sauvetage à Yellowknife, (ix) augmenter de 500 l’effectif des Canadian Rangers, (x) établir un bataillon de 650 membres aux BFC de Comox, Goose Bay, Trenton et Bagotville, (xi) ajouter 1 000 membres de la Force régulière et 750 membres de la Force de réserve à l’effectif de l’armée stationné à Québec, (xii) établir une unité de défense territoriale à Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montréal, Québec, Saint John, St. John's et Halifax et dans le couloir Niagara-Windsor, (xiii) recruter 1 000 membres de la force régulière dans le but de développer et de grossir la flotte de l’Atlantique, (xiv) augmenter le nombre des militaires à la BFC Gagetown, (xv) stationner de nouveaux aéronefs et d’autres militaires à la BFC Greenwood, (xvi) augmenter d’environ 500 membres la force navale régulière du Pacifique, (xvii) déployer de nouveaux aéronefs de recherche et de sauvetage à voilure fixe aux BFC Comox et Winnipeg, (xviii) mettre à niveau les avions de chasse de la BFC Cold Lake; b) pour quelles raisons chacun des éléments visés en a)(i) à a)(xviii) est-il inclus dans la Stratégie de défense Le Canada d'abord ou en est-il exclu; c) pour chaque élément visé en a)(i) à a)(xviii) qui ne fait pas partie de la stratégie, (i) le gouvernement a-t-il pris des mesures depuis le 1er janvier 2012 pour en assurer la réalisation, (ii) s’il ne l’a pas fait, compte-t-il le faire, (iii) s’il compte en assurer la réalisation, quand compte-t-il le faire, (iv) s’il ne compte pas en assurer la réalisation, quand en a-t-il décidé ainsi, et quel est le titre, la date et le numéro de référence des documents liés à la décision?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 920 --
M. Marc Garneau :
En ce qui concerne les affaires étrangères, relativement à chaque visite à l’étranger et délégation énumérée sous la rubrique « Dépenses relatives à la participation canadienne aux conférences et réunions internationales » dans les Comptes publics des exercices 2006-2007 à 2013-2014 inclusivement, quel est le nom complet de chacun des voyageurs ou délégués figurant sous la rubrique « Autres » ou « Intervenants », à l’exception des parlementaires ou conjoints de parlementaires, et quelle est la raison de sa participation à la visite ou de sa présence au sein de la délégation?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 921 --
M. Marc Garneau :
En ce qui concerne le Rapport ministériel sur le rendement d’Affaires étrangères, Commerce et Développement Canada au sujet des dépenses réelles engagées en 2013-2014 au titre du développement international et de l’aide humanitaire aux pays à faible revenu: a) quels pays à faible revenu ont reçu une aide financière; b) combien a-t-on dépensé au titre de chacun de ces pays; c) quels pays auparavant classés « à faible revenu » sont maintenant classés « fragiles » et « touchés par des crises »; d) combien d’argent a-t-on dépensé au titre de ces pays nouvellement classés fragiles et touchés par des crises; e) les crédits inutilisés de 125,9 millions de dollars seront-ils affectés en fin d’année à d’autres programmes et, le cas échéant, (i) à quels programmes, (ii) à quels endroits, (iii) combien sera affecté à chaque programme?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 922 --
Mme Yvonne Jones:
En ce qui concerne les arrangements fiscaux entre le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces: a) la part fédérale de 70 % du fonds fédéral-provincial de 400 millions de dollars visant à favoriser les améliorations dans l’industrie des pêches, annoncé par le gouvernement de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador le 2 octobre 2013, a-t-elle été comptabilisée dans le cadre financier; b) si la réponse en a) est affirmative (i) dans quel ministère, (ii) pour quel exercice, (iii) en vertu de quel pouvoir, (iv) dans le cadre de quels programme et sous-programme les fonds ont-ils été comptabilisés dans le cadre financier; c) le gouvernement a-t-il participé de quelque façon à l’annonce du 29 octobre 2013; d) si la réponse en c) est affirmative, de quelle nature était la participation; e) si la réponse en c) est négative, pour quel motif n’y a-t-il pas participé; f) pourquoi le communiqué publié le 6 décembre 2013 par le ministère des Affaires étrangères, du Commerce et du Développement, intitulé « La ministre Shea souligne les avantages que l’accord commercial entre le Canada et l’Union européenne procurera à Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador », ne fait-il aucune mention du fonds de 400 millions de dollars indiqué en a); g) pourquoi le communiqué publié le 26 juin 2014 par le ministère des Pêches et des Océans, intitulé « Les ministres poursuivent leur collaboration en faveur de la protection des pêches et du développement des industries canadiennes de la pêche et de l'aquaculture », ne fait-il aucune mention du fonds de 400 millions de dollars indiqué en a); h) pourquoi le communiqué publié le 5 août 2014 par le ministère des Affaires étrangères, du Commerce et du Développement, intitulé « Le Canada et l’Union européenne s’entendent sur un texte complet », ne fait-il aucune mention du fonds de 400 millions de dollars indiqué en a); i) pourquoi la note d’information publiée par le ministère des Affaires étrangères, du Commerce et du Développement le 26 septembre 2014, intitulée « Accord commercial Canada-Union européenne sommaire des retombées », ne fait-elle aucune mention du fonds de 400 millions de dollars indiqué en a); j) quels ont été les lieux et les dates de toutes les réunions tenues entre les responsables fédéraux et provinciaux au sujet du fonds de 400 millions de dollars indiqué en a); k) quels sont les titres, les dates et les numéros de tous les registres, dossiers, rapports, documents, notes d’information, documents d’information et autres pièces relatifs au fonds de 400 millions de dollars indiqué en a), que détient (i) le bureau du Conseil privé, (ii) le Secrétariat des conférences intergouvernementales canadiennes, (iii) l’Agence de promotion économique du Canada atlantique, (iv) le ministère des Affaires étrangères, du Commerce et du Développement, (v) le ministère des Pêches et des Océans?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 923 --
M. Murray Rankin:
En ce qui concerne l’administration de la paye par le gouvernement: a) quel est le nombre actuel total d’employés; b) quelle est la liste complète des institutions gouvernementales, en indiquant le nombre d’employés, pour chaque institution indiquée; c) quels sont les coûts réels, y compris sans toutefois s’y limiter, le budget permanent, le budget temporaire et le financement temporarisé, pour les salaires et traitements, le fonctionnement et l’entretien, ainsi que les sources de financement pour les opérations d’administration de la paye, répartis selon (i) chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (ii) le service pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (iii) les institutions précisées en b) pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12); d) quelle est la liste complète des institutions gouvernementales participant à l’Initiative de transformation de l'administration de la paye de Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada (TPSGC), ainsi que le nombre d’employés, pour chaque institution indiquée; e) quelle est la liste détaillée et la gamme complète de tous les services et activités de paye qui sont traités, administrés, gérés ou fournis par le Centre des services de paye de la fonction publique de Miramichi, au Nouveau Brunswick; f) quelle est la liste détaillée tous les services et activités de paye qui ne sont pas, en tout ou en partie, traités, administrés, gérés ou fournis par le Centre des services de paye de la fonction publique de Miramichi, mais qui dépendent, en tout ou en partie, des conseillers en rémunération de l’extérieur du Centre des services de paye de la fonction publique de Miramichi, ou qui dépendent des conseillers en rémunération des institutions indiquées en d); g) quelles sont les justifications détaillées pour chaque élément en f); h) quelle est la liste complète des institutions gouvernementales qui sont exclues, en tout ou en partie, de l’Initiative de transformation de l'administration de la paye, ou qui ont conclu une entente indépendante de l’Initiative, en indiquant le nombre d’employés touchés, pour chaque institution indiquée; i) quelles sont les justifications détaillées pour chaque élément en h); j) quels sont les détails de tous les documents et de toutes les présentations au Conseil du Trésor (PCT) liés au cycle de vie de l’Initiative de transformation de l'administration de la paye de TPSGC, y compris sans toutefois s’y limiter (i) l’analyse de rentabilisation, (ii) la charte de projet, (iii) les plans de travail, (iv) la feuille de route, (v) l’évaluation de la complexité et des risques du projet, (vi) le calendrier et les délais prévus, (vii) les tableaux budgétaires prévus, (viii) les tableaux des coûts prévus, (ix) la phase de conception ou de définition, (x) la phase de définition (lancement, faisabilité, analyse, fermeture), (xi) la phase de mise en œuvre (planification, conception, réalisation, fermeture), (xii) l’approbation préliminaire de projet (APP), (xiii) l’approbation définitive du projet (ADP); k) quels sont les détails de tous les documents après l’ADP en j), y compris sans toutefois s’y limiter, (i) les rapports d’évaluation de l’état de préparation, (ii) les vérifications, examens et rapports internes de TPSGC, (iii) les vérifications, examens et rapports du Conseil du Trésor, (iv) les vérifications, examens et rapports externes de fournisseurs de services professionnels externes et de cabinets d'experts-conseils, (v) les modifications, amendements et changements subséquents aux PCT; l) quels sont les coûts réels et les sources de financement pour l’Initiative de transformation de l'administration de la paye, répartis selon (i) chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (ii) les projets pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (iii) le service pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (iv) les institutions indiquées en d) pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12); m) quelles sont les répercussions réelles sur les budgets et les coûts du point de vue de chaque institution touchée indiquée en d) relativement à la mise en œuvre de l’Initiative de transformation de l'administration de la paye, réparties selon (i) chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (ii) les projets pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (iii) le service pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12); n) quels sont les détails de tous les documents de TPSGC préalables antérieurs qui ont donné lieu et suite à la première tentative jusqu’au lancement du processus du cycle de vie du projet défini en j), y compris sans toutefois s’y limiter, (i) tous les scénarios, rapports et analyses liés aux budgets de projet prévus, (ii) les notes d’information aux ministres et administrateurs généraux, (iii) le budget et les coûts pour chaque exercice depuis la première tentative jusqu’au lancement du processus du cycle de vie du projet défini en j), (iv) les sources de financement destinées à l’exécution de la phase préliminaire?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 924 --
M. Murray Rankin:
En ce qui concerne l’administration des pensions par le gouvernement: a) quel est le nombre actuel total de participants au régime de pension, actifs et retraités; b) quelle est la liste complète des institutions gouvernementales, en indiquant le nombre de participants, actifs et retraités, pour chaque institution indiquée; c) quels sont les coûts réels, y compris sans toutefois s’y limiter, le budget permanent, le budget temporaire et le financement temporarisé, pour les salaires et traitements, le fonctionnement et l’entretien, ainsi que les sources de financement pour les opérations d’administration des pensions, répartis selon (i) chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (ii) le service pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (iii) les institutions précisées en b) pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12); d) quelle est la liste complète des institutions gouvernementales participant à l’Initiative de transformation de l'administration des pensions de Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada (TPSGC), ainsi que le nombre de participants, actifs et retraités, pour chaque institution indiquée; e) quelle est la liste détaillée et la gamme complète de tous les services et activités des pensions qui sont traités, administrés, gérés ou fournis par le Centre des pensions de la fonction publique (CPFP) de Shediac, au Nouveau Brunswick; f) quelle est la liste détaillée tous les services et activités des pensions qui ne sont pas, en tout ou en partie, traités, administrés, gérés ou fournis par le CPFP de Shediac, mais qui dépendent, en tout ou en partie, des conseillers en rémunération des institutions indiquées en d); g) quelles sont les justifications détaillées pour chaque élément en f); h) quelle est la liste complète des institutions gouvernementales qui sont exclues, en tout ou en partie, de l’Initiative de transformation des pensions, ou qui ont conclu une entente indépendante de l’Initiative, en indiquant le nombre de participants actifs ou retraités touchés, pour chaque institution indiquée; i) quelles sont les justifications détaillées pour chaque élément en h); j) quels sont les détails de tous les documents et de toutes les présentations au Conseil du Trésor (PCT) liés au cycle de vie de l’Initiative de transformation de l'administration des pensions de TPSGC, y compris sans toutefois s’y limiter (i) l’analyse de rentabilisation, (ii) la charte de projet, (iii) les plans de travail, (iv) la feuille de route, (v) l’évaluation de la complexité et des risques du projet, (vi) le calendrier et les délais prévus, (vii) les tableaux budgétaires prévus, (viii) les tableaux des coûts prévus, (ix) la phase de conception ou de définition, (x) la phase de définition (lancement, faisabilité, analyse, fermeture), (xi) la phase de mise en œuvre (planification, conception, réalisation, fermeture), (xii) l’approbation préliminaire de projet (APP), (xiii) l’approbation définitive du projet (ADP); k) quels sont les détails de tous les documents après l’ADP en j), y compris sans toutefois s’y limiter, (i) les rapports d’évaluation de l’état de préparation, (ii) les vérifications, examens et rapports internes de TPSGC, (iii) les vérifications, examens et rapports du Conseil du Trésor, (iv) les vérifications, examens et rapports externes de fournisseurs de services professionnels externes et de cabinets d'experts-conseils, (v) les modifications, amendements et changements subséquents aux PCT; l) quels sont les coûts réels et les sources de financement pour l’Initiative de transformation de l'administration des pensions, répartis selon (i) chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (ii) les projets pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (iii) le service pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (iv) les institutions indiquées en d) pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12); m) quelles sont les répercussions réelles sur les budgets et les coûts du point de vue de chaque institution touchée indiquée en d) relativement à la mise en œuvre de l’Initiative de transformation de l'administration des pensions, réparties selon (i) chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (ii) les projets pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12), (iii) le service pour chaque exercice depuis 2006, aux périodes (P9) et (P12); n) quels sont les détails de tous les documents de TPSGC préalables antérieurs qui ont donné lieu et suite à la première tentative jusqu’au lancement du processus du cycle de vie du projet défini en j), y compris sans toutefois s’y limiter, (i) tous les scénarios, rapports et analyses liés aux budgets de projet prévus, (ii) les notes d’information aux ministres et administrateurs généraux, (iii) le budget et les coûts pour chaque exercice depuis la première tentative jusqu’au lancement du processus du cycle de vie du projet défini en j), (iv) les sources de financement destinées à l’exécution de la phase préliminaire?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 925 --
L'hon. Judy Sgro:
En ce qui concerne les réaménagements d’effectifs depuis 2012: a) combien d’employés ont reçu (i) une rémunération en remplacement de la période excédentaire, (ii) une mesure de soutien à la transition, (iii) une indemnité d’études, (iv) une prime de maintien en fonction ou un paiement spécial dans le cadre d’une initiative de diversification des modes d’exécution aux termes d’une entente sur le réaménagement des effectifs, (v) un paiement forfaitaire en vertu de la Directive sur la transition dans la carrière des cadres supérieurs; b) à combien, au total, se sont élevés (i) les rémunérations en remplacement de la période excédentaire, (ii) les mesures de soutien à la transition, (iii) les indemnités d’études, (iv) les primes de maintien en fonction ou les paiement spéciaux dans le cadre d’une initiative de diversification des modes d’exécution aux termes d’une entente sur le réaménagement des effectifs, (v) les paiements forfaitaires en vertu de la Directive sur la transition dans la carrière des cadres supérieurs?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 926 --
M. Matthew Dubé:
En ce qui concerne les paiements en remplacement d’impôts relatifs aux sites historiques nationaux tels que désignés par Parcs Canada: depuis 2009 jusqu'à ce jour, quels sont les montants octroyés par le ministère Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux à chacune des autorités taxatrices, ventilés par (i) site historique, (ii) année?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 927 --
L'hon. Ralph Goodale:
En ce qui concerne les « nudges » ou coups de pouce dont il est question dans l’édition de mars 2012 du bulletin d’Horizons de politiques Canada, numéro ISBN PH4-134/2012F-PDF, 978-0-662-74899-1: a) le gouvernement s’est-il entretenu de leurs politiques avec d’autres pays qui emploient des « nudges » et, dans l’affirmative, lesquels; b) le gouvernement a-t-il produit des analyses de ces politiques et, le cas échéant, quels sont (i) le titre, (ii) la date, (iii) le ministère, (iv) l’auteur, (v) le numéro de dossier de ces documents; c) le gouvernement a-t-il mis en œuvre ou mis à l’essai de telles politiques et, dans l’affirmative, (i) de quelle manière, (ii) à quel endroit, (iii) sous la direction de qui, (iv) quels en ont été les résultats; d) si le gouvernement a décidé de ne pas mettre en œuvre ou mettre à l’essai de telles politiques, quelle était la justification de cette décision?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 928 --
L'hon. Ralph Goodale:
En ce qui concerne les taxes fédérales, dont les droits de douane, les frais de service et les frais d’utilisation: depuis 2005, a) dans quels cas une augmentation, une nouvelle imposition ou l’élimination d’un crédit ou d’une prestation ont-ils été décrétés, en précisant (i) la taxe, le tarif, les frais ou le crédit particulier, (ii) le taux ou le montant, (iii) la date d’entrée en vigueur, (iv) les recettes produites, (v) le ministère ayant effectué la modification; b) quel est le total annuel des recettes produites par chacune des modifications en a), ventilé par année?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 929 --
L'hon. Irwin Cotler:
En ce qui concerne le rôle du personnel diplomatique canadien relativement aux activités des sociétés extractives canadiennes à l’extérieur du Canada: a) quel est ce rôle; b) quelles politiques, lignes directrices et directives régissent ce rôle; c) pour chacune des politiques, lignes directrices et directives en b), (i) quand a-t-elle été adoptée, (ii) par qui a-t-elle été adoptée, (iii) quel en était l’objectif, (iv) son objectif a-t-il été atteint, (v) comment le gouvernement détermine-t-il si son objectif a été atteint, (vi) comment a-t-elle été communiquée au personnel diplomatique canadien, (vii) quelle politique, ligne directrice ou directive antérieure a-t-elle remplacée ou modifiée; d) de quelles façons le personnel diplomatique canadien appuie-t-il les activités des sociétés extractives canadiennes; e) de quelles façons le personnel diplomatique canadien facilite t il l’établissement de nouveaux projets, activités ou installations par des sociétés extractives canadiennes; f) de quelles façons le personnel diplomatique canadien intervient-il dans les rapports entre les sociétés extractives canadiennes et (i) les gouvernements locaux, (ii) les organismes locaux d’application de la loi, (iii) la société civile locale, (iv) les résidents; g) de quelles façons le personnel diplomatique canadien veille-t-il à ce que les sociétés extractives canadiennes observent (i) les lois et règlements locaux, (ii) les lois et règlements canadiens, (iii) les lois et règlements internationaux, (iv) les normes locales en matière de droits de la personne, (v) les normes canadiennes en matière de droit de la personne, (vi) les normes internationales en matière de droit de la personne,(vii) les normes locales en matière de protection environnementale, (viii) les normes canadiennes en matière de protection environnementale, (ix) les normes internationales en matière de protection environnementale; h) de quelles façons le personnel diplomatique canadien tente-t-il de réduire la résistance aux activités des sociétés extractives canadiennes manifestée par (i) les gouvernements locaux, (ii) la société civile, (iii) les résidents; i) de quelles façons le personnel diplomatique canadien aide-t-il les sociétés extractives canadiennes à réduire la résistance à leurs activités manifestée par (i) les gouvernements locaux, (ii) la société civile, (iii) les résidents; j) de quelles façons le personnel diplomatique canadien tente-t-il de favoriser les activités des sociétés extractives canadiennes en préconisant des modifications aux lois ou règlements locaux; k) de quelles façons le personnel diplomatique canadien tente-t-il de favoriser les activités des sociétés extractives canadiennes en militant contre des modifications aux lois ou règlements locaux; l) selon quels facteurs les missions diplomatiques canadiennes évaluent-elles les demandes d’aide ou de service des sociétés extractives, y compris les services offerts dans le cadre du Plan d'action sur les marchés mondiaux; m) pour chacune des cinq dernières années, et pour chaque pays où se trouve la mission diplomatique, combien de demandes d’aide ou de service les missions diplomatiques canadiennes ont-elles reçues de sociétés extractives canadiennes; n) pour chaque demande en m), (i) quelle société a fait la demande, (ii) quelle aide ou quel service la société a-t-elle demandé, (iii) quelle aide ou quel service la société a-t-elle obtenu, (iv) qui a évalué la demande, (v) si la demande a été refusée, pour quels motifs a-t-elle été refusée, (vi) qui a fourni l’aide ou le service, (vii) quel a été le coût de la prestation de l’aide ou du service, (viii) quel était l’objectif de la prestation de l’aide ou du service, (ix) de quelle façon l’objectif a-t-il été atteint; o) dans quelles circonstances les missions diplomatiques canadiennes offrent elles de l’aide ou des services, y compris les services offerts dans le cadre du Plan d'action sur les marchés mondiaux, à une société extractive canadienne sans que celle-ci en fasse la demande; p) pour chacune des cinq dernières années, et pour chaque pays où se trouve la mission diplomatique, (i) quelles sociétés ont reçu de l’aide ou des services d’une mission diplomatique canadienne sans avoir présenté de demande, (ii) quelle était la nature de l’aide ou du service, (iii) qui a pris la décision d’offrir l’aide ou le service, (iv) qui a assuré la prestation de l’aide ou du service, (v) quel a été le coût de la prestation de l’aide ou du service, (vi) quel était l’objectif de la prestation de l’aide ou du service, (vii) de quelle façon l’objectif a-t-il été atteint; q) pour chacune des cinq dernières années, selon le pays, dans quelles poursuites judiciaires à l’extérieur du Canada concernant des sociétés extractives canadiennes le Canada est-il intervenu; r) pour chaque intervention en q), (i) quelle était la nature de l’intervention, (ii) quel était l’objectif de l’intervention, (iii) de quelle façon l’objectif a t il été atteint, (iv) qui a pris la décision d’intervenir, (v) qui a effectué l’intervention, (vi) de quel conseiller juridique externe les services ont-ils été retenus, (vii) quel est le détail des coûts de l’intervention, (viii) quel est le numéro d’accès ou de contrôle de tout document juridique déposé par le Canada; s) selon quels critères le personnel diplomatique canadien détermine-t-il si une société extractive canadienne respecte les normes canadiennes en matière de responsabilité sociale des entreprises, plus particulièrement les normes définies dans le document de 2014 intitulé Le modèle d’affaires canadien: Stratégie de promotion de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises pour les sociétés extractives canadiennes présentes à l’étranger; t) à quelle fréquence le personnel diplomatique canadien évalue-t-il la mesure dans laquelle les sociétés canadiennes respectent les normes canadiennes en matière de responsabilité sociale des entreprises; u) quelle mesure le personnel diplomatique canadien prend-il lorsque l’on découvre qu’une société ne respecte pas les normes canadiennes en matière de responsabilité sociale des entreprises; v) pour chacune des cinq dernières années, et pour chaque pays où se trouve la mission diplomatique, quelles sociétés extractives ont été réputées non conformes aux normes canadiennes en matière de responsabilité sociale des entreprises; w) pour chaque société en v), quelle mesure le personnel diplomatique canadien a-t-il prise pour traiter l’inobservation; x) quelle formation le personnel diplomatique canadien reçoit-il afin d’être en mesure de conseiller et surveiller les sociétés extractives canadiennes à l’égard de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises; y) quelle aide ou services le personnel diplomatique canadien a-t-il offerts à (i) Tahoe Resources au Guatemala, (ii) Nevsun Resources en Érythrée, (iii) Fortuna Silver au Mexique, (iv) Excellon Resources au Mexique, (v) IAMGOLD en Équateur, (vi) Cornerstone Capital Resources en Équateur, (vii) Kinross Gold Corporation en Équateur, (viii) Lundin Mining en Équateur, (ix) Barrick Gold au Chili, (x) Goldcorp au Chili, (xi) Yamana Gold en Argentine, (xii) Barrick Gold au Pérou, (xiii) Candente Copper au Pérou, (xiv) Bear Creek Mining au Pérou, (xv) HudBay Minerals au Pérou, (xvi) Eldorado Gold en Grèce, (xvii) Esperanza Resources au Mexique, (xviii) TVI Pacific aux Philippines, (xix) Infinito Gold au Costa Rica, (xx) Blackfire Exploration au Mexique, (xxi) Skye Resources au Guatemala, (xxii) Glamis Gold au Guatemala; z) pour chacun des cas en y) où de l’aide ou un service a été offert, (i) quel a été le coût, (ii) quel était l’objectif, (iii) de quelle façon l’objectif a-t-il été atteint, (iv) qui a pris la décision d’offrir l’aide ou le service, (v) qui a offert l’aide ou le service; aa) quelles activités de lobbying ou de promotion le personnel diplomatique canadien a-t-il réalisées en ce qui concerne (i) les lois relatives au secteur extractif au Guatemala, y compris le décret 22-2014, (ii) les lois relatives au secteur extractif en Équateur, y compris la Ley Orgánica Reformatoria a la Ley de Minería, a la Ley Reformatoria para la Equidad Tributaria en el Ecuador y a la Ley Orgánica de Régimen Tributario Interno in Ecuador, (iii) les lois relatives au secteur extractif au Honduras, y compris les modifications au droit minier général du Honduras; bb) pour chaque activité de lobbying ou de promotion en aa), (i) quel a été le coût, (ii) quel était l’objectif, (iii) de quelle façon l’objectif a-t-il été atteint, (iv) qui a pris la décision d’entreprendre l’activité de lobbying ou de promotion, (v) qui a effectué l’activité de lobbying ou de promotion?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 930 --
M. Robert Chisholm:
En ce qui concerne l’assurance-emploi: a) combien de demandes de prestations de maladie présentées pendant que le demandeur était en congé parental ont été acceptées par la Commission de l’assurance-emploi chaque année depuis 2010; b) combien de demandes de prestations de maladie présentées pendant que le demandeur était en congé parental ont été acceptées par les conseils arbitraux de l’assurance-emploi chaque année de 2010 à 2013 inclusivement; c) combien de demandes de prestations de maladie présentées pendant que le demandeur était en congé parental ont été acceptées par les juges-arbitres chaque année de 2010 à 2013 inclusivement; d) combien de demandes de prestations de maladie présentées pendant que le demandeur était en congé parental ont été acceptées par le Tribunal de la sécurité sociale en 2013 et 2014; e) combien d’argent le gouvernement a-t-il consacré au recours collectif de femmes à qui on avait refusé des prestations de maladie pendant qu’elles étaient en congé parental; f) combien d’avocats du ministère de la Justice travaillent sur le dossier du recours collectif; g) quel était le coût moyen d’un appel examiné par la Commission de l’assurance-emploi, un conseil arbitral et un juge-arbitre?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 931 --
Mme Irene Mathyssen:
En ce qui concerne Emploi et Développement social Canada: a) quelles mesures le gouvernement a-t-il prises depuis janvier 2013 pour que le supplément de revenu garanti (SRG) suffise à assurer une qualité de vie raisonnable aux bénéficiaires et plus précisément, (i) quels ajustements a-t-il apportés au SRG pour compenser la hausse du prix des aliments, (ii) quels changements a-t-il apportés au SRG pour élargir l’accès des aînés à faible revenu aux médicaments avec ou sans ordonnance non assurés, (iii) quels ajustements a-t-il envisagé d’apporter au SRG pour compenser les propriétaires et les locataires à faible revenu de la hausse des frais de logement; b) quels sont les détails de la promesse qu’il a faite d’amorcer l’inscription automatique des aînés au SRG et plus précisément, (i) le nombre d’appels reçus par Service Canada au sujet du programme, (ii) la date des appels, (iii) le nombre des personnes automatiquement inscrites, (iv) le nombre de personnes qui n’ont pas encore été automatiquement inscrites, (v) le nombre d’appels de demande de renseignements reçus par Service Canada au sujet de l’inscription automatique, (vi) la plainte la plus commune reçue par Service Canada, (vii) des détails sur la mise en œuvre du programme d’inscription automatique à l’échelle nationale; c) quels sont les détails du programme d’inscription proactive au SRG et plus précisément, (i) le nombre d’appels reçus par Service Canada au sujet du programme, (ii) la date des appels, (iii) le nombre de personnes inscrites dans le cadre de ce programme, (iv) le nombre de personnes qui n’ont pas encore été automatiquement inscrites, (v) le nombre d’appels de demande de renseignements reçus par Service Canada au sujet de l’inscription automatique, (vi) la plainte la plus commune reçue par Service Canada, (vii) des détails sur la mise en œuvre du programme d’inscription proactive à l’échelle nationale?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 933 --
Mme Irene Mathyssen:
En ce qui concerne Emploi et Développement social Canada aux fins de la campagne de lutte contre les mauvais traitements envers les aînés, depuis janvier 2013: a) quel est le total des sommes dépensées, selon chaque catégorie de dépense; b) dans quelles circonscriptions les dépenses ont-elles été effectuées; c) quel changement a-t-on observé quant au nombre d’aînés victimes de mauvais traitements?
Response
(Le document est déposé)

Question no 934 --
Mme Libby Davies:
En ce qui concerne la Stratégie fédérale de lutte contre le tabagisme, en 2013-2014: a) à combien s’élevait le budget de la Stratégie; b) quelle part de ce budget a été dépensée au cours de l’exercice; c) quel montant a été consacré à chacun des éléments suivants de la Stratégie, (i) médias, (ii) élaboration de politiques et de règlements, (iii) recherche, (iv) surveillance, (v) contrôle d’application, (vi) subventions et contributions, (vii) programmes destinés aux Autochtones du Canada; d) d’autres activités qui ne sont pas mentionnées en c) ont-elles été financées dans le cadre de la Stratégie et, dans l’affirmative, quel montant a été consacré à chacune de ces activités?
Response
(Le document est déposé)
8555-412-768 Cost of travel by parliamen ...8555-412-769 Youth Gang Prevention Fund ...8555-412-770 Treasury Board Secretariat8555-412-771 Ministerial use of private ...8555-412-772 Passport Canada8555-412-774 Department of Fisheries and ...8555-412-778 Access to Information Act8555-412-779 Kathryn Spirit8555-412-780 Sporting event tickets8555-412-782 Government advertising8555-412-783 Chronic Wasting Disease ...Show all topics
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 233--
Ms. Charmaine Borg:
With regard to requests by government agencies to telecommunications service providers (TSP) to provide information about customers’ usage of communications devices and services: (a) in 2012 and 2013, how many such requests were made; (b) of the total referred to in (a), how many requests were made by (i) RCMP, (ii) Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (iii) Competition Bureau, (iv) Canada Revenue Agency, (v) Canada Border Services Agency, (vi) Communications Security Establishment Canada; (c) for the requests referred to in (a), how many of each of the following types of information were requested, (i) geolocation of device (broken down by real-time and historical data), (ii) call detail records (as obtained by number recorders or by disclosure of stored data), (iii) text message content, (iv) voicemail, (v) cell tower logs, (vi) real-time interception of communications (i.e. wire-tapping), (vii) subscriber information, (viii) transmission data (e.g. duration of interaction, port numbers, communications routing data, etc.), (ix) data requests (e.g. web sites visited, IP address logs), (x) any other kinds of data requests pertaining to the operation of TSPs’ networks and businesses, broken down by type; (d) for each of the request types referred to in (c), what are all of the data fields that are disclosed as part of responding to a request; (e) of the total referred to in (a), how many of the requests were made (i) for real-time disclosures, (ii) retroactively, for stored data, (iii) in exigent circumstances, (iv) in non-exigent circumstances, (v) subject to a court order; (f) of the total referred to in (a), (i) how many of the requests did TSPs fulfill, (ii) how many requests did they deny and for what reasons; (g) do the government agencies that request information from TSPs notify affected TSP subscribers that information pertaining to their telecommunications service has been accessed by the government, (i) if so, how many subscribers are notified per year, (ii) by which government agencies; (h) for each type of request referred to in (c), broken down by agency, (i) how long is the information obtained by such requests retained by government agencies, (ii) what is the average time period for which government agencies request such information (e.g. 35 days of records), (iii) what is the average amount of time that TSPs are provided to fulfil such requests, (iv) what is the average number of subscribers who have their information disclosed to government agencies; (i) what are the legal standards that agencies use to issue the requests for information referred to in (c); (j) how many times were the requests referred to in (c) based specifically on grounds of (i) terrorism, (ii) national security, (iii) foreign intelligence, (iv) child exploitation; (k) what is the maximum number of subscribers that TSPs are required by government agencies to monitor for each of the information types identified in (c); (l) has the government ever ordered (e.g. through ministerial authorization or a court order) the increase of one of the maximum numbers referred to in (k); (m) do TSPs ever refuse to comply with requests for information identified in (c) and, if so, (i) why were such requests refused, (ii) how do government agencies respond when a TSP refuses to comply; and (n) in 2012 and 2013, did government agencies provide money or other forms of compensation to TSPs in exchange for the information referred to in (a) and, if so, (i) how much money have government agencies paid, (ii) are there different levels of compensation for exigent or non-exigent requests?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 263--
Mr. Mike Wallace:
With regard to questions on the Order Paper numbers Q-1 through Q-253, what is the estimated cost of the government's response for each question?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 328--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to any contracting paid for by the budgets of each Minister's Office since May 1, 2011, what are the details of all contracts over $500 including (i) the name of the supplier, vendor or individual who received the contract, (ii) the date on which the contract was entered into, (iii) the date the contract terminated, (iv) a brief description of the good or service provided, (v) the amount of payment initially agreed upon for the contract, (vi) the final amount paid for the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 493--
Ms. Francine Raynault:
With regard to spending in the Joliette riding, what was the total amount spent, from fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the funds were received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount, (ii) the program through which the funding was allocated, (iv) the department responsible, (v) the designated recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 494--
Ms. Francine Raynault:
With regard to the operation of the Skills Link Program: (a) what is the approval process for an application; (b) how many parties propose recommendations to an application before ministerial approval; (c) how does the Minister’s office assess an application; (d) how is the budget for the program split up across the country; (e) how much money was spent in each of the areas specified in (d) for the 2013-2014 program; (f) how much money was allocated and spent in each constituency for the 2013-2014 program; and (g) is money left over from the 2013-2014 program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 495--
Ms. Francine Raynault:
With regard to the funding of First Nations educational infrastructure: (a) what are the prioritization criteria for deciding in what order on-reserve schools are to be renovated or modified; (b) what are the first one hundred schools on the prioritization list; (c) where does École Simon P. Ottawa in Manawan rank on the list; (d) what was the estimated useful life and capacity of École Simon P. Ottawa in Manawan at the time it was built; (e) when will École Simon P. Ottawa be replaced; and (f) what is the assessment in terms of the capacity of École Simon P. Ottawa in Manawan, given the population boom in this community?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 497--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the management and publication of material related to judicial appointments: (a) what is the policy of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada with respect to posting information pertaining to candidates; (b) in what way is the nomination material archived; (c) is the material on the website the same as in the binder provided to MPs and, if not, how do they differ; (d) when materials are removed from the website, (i) who keeps copies, (ii), who is provided a copy, (iii) how can this material be accessed, (iv) by whom can it be accessed, (v) how long is it kept; (e) are the materials from the website provided to the Supreme Court of Canada, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what conditions relating to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (f) are the materials from the website provided to the Library of Parliament, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what understating relative to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (g) are the materials from the website provided to the Department of Justice, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what conditions relating to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (h) are the materials from the website provided to the Minister of Justice, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what conditions relating to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (i) are the materials from the website provided to the Prime Minister’s Office, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what understating relative to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (j) are the materials from the website provided to Library and Archives Canada and, if so, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what conditions relating to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (k) how many binders were prepared relative to Mr. Justice Marc Nadon’s appointment and where are these binders now; (l) how many binders were prepared relative to Mr. Justice Wagner’s appointment and where are these binders now; (m) in what way and through what processes can previous binders be consulted by (i) parliamentarians, (ii) the public, (iii) the media, (iv) legal scholars; (n) for how long does the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada retain all information relative to judicial appointment cycles and what are its policies on both retention of these materials and access to them; (o) with respect to the inclusion of publications, seminars and lectures in Mr. Justice’s Wagner’s materials, why is no such material included in Mr. Justice Nadon’s materials and whose decision was this; (p) with respect to the statement made in the government’s response to written question Q-239, that “ (bb)(i) The material requested in the latest appointment process does not differ materially from those requested for the appointment of Justice Wagner” and “(iv) The wording was substantially the same”, what is the difference between “materially” and “substantially” insofar as case law areas are concerned; (q) do the uses of “materially” and “substantially” mean that the wording was not exactly the same; (r) were Justices Wagner and Justice Nadon asked for the same exact materials and same areas of cases law and, if not, why not; (s) do the types of materials sought from candidates change between appointment cycles, (i) if so, why, (ii) who makes this determination; (t) do the types of material sought from candidates for Quebec seats change between appointment cycles, (i) if so, why, (ii) how is this determined; (u) with what bodies did the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada consult in developing a retention and access policy relative to materials associated with a judicial appointment; (v) why is candidate information on the website for the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada only temporarily online and how was this policy developed; (w) were any briefing documents, presentations, or memos prepared for ministers or their staff, from 2006 to present, regarding Supreme Court Appointments and, for each, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject-matters, (iii) department, commission, or agency’s internal tracking number; (x) do members of the Selection Panel have access to the materials developed or used in an appointment process after the appointment has been made; (y) does the Minister of Justice or Prime Minister have access to the materials developed or used in an appointment process after the appointment has been made; (z) does an appointed justice have any access to the materials developed or used in the process after the appointment has been made; (aa) does any person consulted in the process of an appointment have any access to materials or records developed or used in the process at any time; (bb) what materials were developed or used in the most recent appointment process; (cc) what records of meetings or other items exist relative to the most recent appointment process, (i) by what means can they be accessed, (ii) by whom; and (dd) does the Minister of Justice or Prime Minister have any access to materials not accessible to other persons and, if so, what materials, and by virtue of what process or policy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 500--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the contract announced on February 14, 2014, between the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the government of Saudi Arabia for the supply of armoured vehicles built in London, Ontario, by General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, and the export permits issued by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD) in accordance with the contract: (a) how many export permits has DFATD issued related to the announced contract, and for each permit issued, what was the (i) value, (ii) date, (iii) valid duration; (b) of the $4.02 billion worth in export permits issued to Saudi Arabia in 2011 for exports of Group 2 (military) goods, how many Group 2 permits were related to the announced contract; (c) were the export permits related to the announced contract issued to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, to General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, or to both; and (d) has the Canadian Commercial Corporation charged, or will it charge, fees for its services regarding the announced contract, (i) have these fees been charged or will they be charged to the Saudi Arabia government, to General Dynamics Land Systems Canada or to both, (ii) if so, is the fee a standard amount or is it determined by the size of the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 501--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to salmon farming in Canada: (a) how many outbreaks of infectious salmon anemia have been reported in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, broken down by province; (b) how many outbreaks of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus have been reported in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, broken down by province; (c) how much money has the government paid out in compensation to producers who were ordered to destroy salmon infected with infectious salmon anemia in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, broken down by province; (d) how much money has the government paid out in compensation to producers who were ordered to destroy salmon infected with infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, broken down by province; (e) how much money has the government paid out in compensation to producers who were ordered to destroy salmon infected with other diseases in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, broken down by province; (f) how much money has the government paid out in compensation to companies headquartered outside of Canada which were ordered to destroy salmon infected with diseases in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014; (g) what plans does the Canadian Food Inspection Agency currently have in place if there are more outbreaks of diseases resulting in compensation to salmon producers; (h) what biosecurity measures are salmon producers required to take in order to be eligible for compensation for the destruction of diseased salmon; (i) what cost-benefit analysis has the government undertaken concerning federal compensation to salmon producers; and (j) has the government examined the cost differential in federal compensation to salmon producers using open-pen systems compared to salmon producers using closed containment systems, and, if so, what were the results of this analysis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 502--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to pesticide residues in tea: (a) what method is used by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to test pesticide residues in dry tea leaves; (b) for which pesticides does the CFIA test tea products, and do these tests include all pesticides approved in Canada; (c) how often does the CFIA test tea products for pesticide residues; (d) how many tea products were tested for pesticide residues in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014; (e) how many tea products were found to contain levels of pesticides exceeding the allowable limits in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, and what action was taken by the government in relation to those products; (f) what policies do the CFIA and Health Canada have in place for tea products containing the residues of multiple pesticides; (g) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential risks to consumers posed by pesticide residues found in tea leaves, and what were the results of this analysis; and (h) how often does Health Canada assess the safety of pesticide residues in food products approved for sale in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 505--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the staffing of Canadian Armed Forces clinics: (a) at each base/location, what is the number employed of (i) military psychiatrists, (ii) civilian psychiatrists employed directly by the Department of National Defence (DND), (iii) psychiatrists from Calian Technologies Ltd., (iv) military psychologists, (v) civilian psychologists employed directly by the DND, (vi) Calian psychologists, (vii) military medical doctors, (viii) civilian medical doctors employed directly by the DND, (ix) Calian medical doctors, (x) military medical social workers, (xi) civilian medical social workers employed directly by the DND, (xii) Calian medical social workers, (xiii) military registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xiv) civilian registered nurses specializing in mental health employed directly by the DND, (xv) Calian registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xvi) military addictions counsellors, (xvii) civilian addictions counsellors employed directly by the DND, (xviii) Calian addictions counsellors; (b) what is the average full-time equivalent salary for (i) military psychiatrists, (ii) civilian psychiatrists employed directly by the DND, (iii) Calian psychiatrists, (iv) military psychologists, (v) civilian psychologists employed directly by the DND, (vi) Calian psychologists, (vii) military medical doctors, (viii) civilian medical doctors employed directly by the DND, (ix) Calian medical doctors, (x) military medical social workers, (xi) civilian medical social workers employed directly by the DND, (xii) Calian medical social workers, (xiii) military registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xiv) civilian registered nurses specializing in mental health employed directly by the DND, (xv) Calian registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xvi) military addictions counsellors, (xvii) civilian addictions counsellors employed directly by the DND, (xviii) Calian addictions counsellors; and (c) what is the average number of patients treated per month by (i) military psychiatrists, (ii) civilian psychiatrists employed directly by the DND, (iii) Calian psychiatrists, (iv) military psychologists, (v) civilian psychologists employed directly by the DND, (vi) Calian psychologists, (vii) military medical doctors, (viii) civilian medical doctors employed directly by the DND, (ix) Calian medical doctors, (x) military medical social workers, (xi) civilian medical social workers employed directly by the DND, (xii) Calian medical social workers, (xiii) military registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xiv) civilian registered nurses specializing in mental health employed directly by the DND, (xv) Calian registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xvi) military addictions counsellors, (xvii) civilian addictions counsellors employed directly by the DND, (xviii) Calian addictions counsellors?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 507--
Mr. François Choquette:
With regard to the current Parks Canada study of the Maligne Tours hotel construction proposal at Maligne Lake, near Jasper: (a) what are the study’s terms of reference; (b) what is Parks Canada’s role in deciding the outcome of this project; (c) when is the study due to be completed; (d) what are the criteria for (i) approval, (ii) rejection of private development projects; (e) will the study take into account the ecological integrity of Parks Canada; (f) will the study include public consultations and, if so, with (i) what groups, (ii) where, (iii) when; (g) will the study of the project be made public and, if applicable, how will the results be made public; (h) who will have access to the study’s final report: (i) the public, (ii) government departments, (iii) ministers; (i) will the study consider the (i) direct, (ii) indirect, (iii) cumulative impacts of a development project of this size in determining the scope of the issue; (j) will the study take into account species at risk; (k) will the study take into account the standards for construction in rocky areas; (l) will the study consider the impacts of such a project on the future of the caribou, which is now an endangered species; and (m) will the study consider the impacts on (i) the economy, (ii) municipalities, (iii) communities, (iv) Aboriginal peoples, (v) human health, (vi) animal health, (vii) aquatic plants, (viii) aquatic animals, (ix) land plants, (x) land animals?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 508--
Mr. Paul Dewar:
With regard to the procurement of temporary personnel services by the government over the last five years: (a) what is the total government expenditure for such services (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year; (b) for each year in this period, what amount was spent by each department; (c) how much was spent in each department or agency in the National Capital Region (NCR) alone, broken down by year; (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 value of all contracts awarded to each company; (g) how many people were hired by temporary employment agencies to work for the government, both nationally and in the NCR (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year; and (h) how many employees were hired on a temporary basis, both nationally and in the NCR, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 509--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to petroleum coke (which may also be referred to as green coke, uncalcined coke, thermocracked coke, and fuel grade coke): (a) what is the government doing to assess and monitor the potential impact on the environment of its storage, transportation and use in Canada, including their impact on (i) water, air and land quality, (ii) acute and chronic human health issues, (iii) aquatic and terrestrial life; and (b) what is the government doing to mitigate the potential impacts referred to in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 510--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada staff working on issues related to the Great Lakes Basin (Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River) from 1972 to 2014 inclusive: (a) what is the total number of such staff for each year, broken down by type of staffing (e.g. “scientific”, “technical”, etc.); and (b) what is the aggregate salary of all such staff, broken down by (i) actual expenditure, (ii) expenditures adjusted for inflation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 511--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to disclosures by telecom and Internet providers (“providers”) of subscriber information: (a) what government agencies and departments request such data; (b) how many such requests have been made in the past five years, broken down by year and requestor; (c) from what providers has the government made requests in the last year; (d) from what providers has the government made requests in the past five years; (e) what is the breakdown of requests by agency and provider in (d); (f) how many individuals have had their subscriber data given to the government in the past five years, broken down by year; (g) what limits exist on what data or information the government can request from providers; (h) what limits exist on what data or information providers can supply; (i) in what ways are persons notified that their data has been requested; (j) in what ways are persons notified that their data has been provided; (k) are there any restrictions on how often the government is allowed to request data from providers generally and, if so, what are they; (l) are there any restrictions on how often the government is allowed to request data from providers relative to a specific user and, if so, what are these; (m) what are the restrictions, if any, to the amount or type of data providers may access in responding to a government request; (n) what sort of information may providers furnish about subscribers without a court order; (o) what does subscriber information entail; (p) what does the government seek when it requests subscriber information; (q) are there any restrictions on when a provider may inform its customers that a government agency has requested data; (r) have any of the government policies that pertain to requests for an access to subscriber data changed in the past five years and, if so, how; (s) how much money did the government spend on data requests, broken down by year, expense type, and the agency incurring the expense, for the past five years; (t) how much money did the government spend on storing and retaining data, broken down by year, expense type, and the agency incurring the expense, for the past five years; (u) how much money did the government spend assessing received data, broken down by year, expense type, and the agency incurring the expense, for the past five years; (v) how much money did the government spend to act upon received data, broken down by year, expense type, and the agency incurring the expense, for the past five years; (w) how often did the disclosure of data lead to action by the government; (x) for calendar year 2013, how many persons were charged with offences under an Act of Parliament where the government had requested subscriber data; (y) for what purposes does the government request subscriber data; (z) what evidence of their concern, if any, must government agencies have for requests for data on grounds of (i) child exploitation, (ii) terrorism, (iii) national security, (iv) foreign intelligence; (aa) what are the definitions and criteria established by the government relative to the enumerated categories in (z); (bb) how often are requests made relative to the enumerated categories in (z); (cc) what grounds other than those enumerated categories in (z) has the government identified as warranting subscriber data requests; (dd) what avenues exist for Canadians to contest governmental demands for access to data sent over communication devices; (ee) what avenues exist for providers to refuse a government request in this regard; (ff) broken down by requesting entity, what is the process by which a data request is made; (gg) in instances where Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) has “incidentally” captured Canadians’ personal information, are there any protocols on what is done with that information; (hh) with respect to (gg), are there any restrictions on how long CSEC or another agency may keep the ‘incidentally’ captured data or on what they may do with it and, if so, what are these; (ii) of the data received by the government, how often and in what ways has it proved useful in ensuring the safety of Canadian citizens; (jj) of Canadians whose data was requested, how much data was provided with respect to (i) usage, (ii) geolocation of device (broken down between real-time and historical), (iii) call detail records (as obtained by number recorders or by disclosure of stored data), (iv) text message content, (v) voicemail, (vi) cell tower logs, (vii) real-time interception of communications, (viii) transmission data, (ix) other data requests; (kk) with respect to the categories in (jj), does the government request all such data in every case; (ll) how does the government determine what data to seek in each case, by what process and criteria, and with what reviews; (mm) with respect to the categories in (jj), does the government not request data with respect to any of them and if not, why not; (nn) with respect to the information types in (jj), which government agencies made such requests in the past five years, and what records are made of the requests; (oo) what records are stored with respect to data requests; (pp) how is the data received stored and for how long; (qq) who or what has access to obtained data; (rr) what is the average amount of time for which government requests data from law enforcement with respect to a specific individual; (ss) how quickly are providers required to respond regarding their ability to provide each type of data provided; (tt) how quickly must providers respond to government requests; (uu) in the past three years did the government provide money or any other form of compensation, including tax breaks, in exchange for information being provided to government agencies, and, if so, what were these; (vv) in what ways has the government consulted with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that data requests comply with privacy law; (ww) with what experts has the government consulted regarding requests for subscriber data; (xx) what protocols are in place to ensure that privacy rights are respected in this process; and (yy) how often has the government met with providers to discuss data requests, and when was the most recent such meeting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 512--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to research at the Department of Justice: (a) broken down by year for each of the last ten years, what studies were undertaken by the Department, and at what cost; (b) of the studies in (a), which ones are currently publicly accessible; (c) of the studies in (a) which, if any, have not been made public; (d) how much funding has been allocated to research and studies for each of the last ten years; (e) how much funding was spent on research and studies for each of the past ten years; (f) what policies or directives account for changes in funding allocated or spent at the Department; (g) who determines or determined the policies or directives in (g); (h) with regard to recent research cuts that the Minister has said were carried out “to ensure that we bring value to hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars”, how is value defined at the Department in the context of research and study; (i) what reports or studies has the Minister determined to be wasteful and according to what criteria; (j) what reports or studies has the Department determined to be wasteful and according to what criteria; (k) what reports or studies has the Minister determined do not “bring value to hard-earned taxpayers dollars” and how so; (l) what reports or studies has the Department determined do not “bring value to hard-earned taxpayers dollars” and according to what criteria; (m) with respect to the statement of the Minister that “research is undertaken to obtain information to support priorities of government,” how are the priorities of government identified and what are they; (n) what studies have been undertaken in the past five years to support the priorities of government; (o) have any studies been undertaken that do not support the priorities of government and, if so, what are these; (p) what studies or research proposals have not been proceeded with at Justice because they do not support the priorities of government; (q) who determines that a study or proposal does not support the priorities of government, and according to what criteria; (r) at what stage(s) is a study or proposal for research evaluated to determine that it does not support the priorities of government, and who conducts the evaluation; (s) what does the term ‘support’ mean in the Minister’s comment; (t) what is done with research that is undertaken to support the government’s priorities but yielded results counter to the government’s priorities; (u) have any such studies as in (t) occurred within the last 10 years; (v) in the past five years, has the government not proceeded with any research or study because it believed the results would be unfavourable; (w) in the past five years, has the government not re-released a study because its results were unfavourable or otherwise counter to advancing the government’s priorities; (x) how are research and study proposals evaluated by the Department; (y) what departmental officials recommended the recently announced $1.2 million cut to research within the Department, and with what rationale; (z) who had final approval within the Department to cut $1.2 million from the research budget; (aa) how many research studies or projects were already underway that were terminated as a result of the decision to cut the Department's research budget; (bb) what were the subject matters of research that was affected as a result of the cuts within the Department; (cc) how much money had already been spent on active research studies subsequently cancelled due to cuts; (dd) what process or policy is in place to decide what research is to be undertaken now, and how has that policy changed, if in any way, over the past four years; (ee) is research that is conducted and published within the Department subject to redaction or editing from individuals other than the researchers, prior to its publication; (ff) after research is presented for possible publication, what other branches within the Department are involved with any redaction or editing of that research before publication; (gg) what role does the Privy Council Office have, if any, in approving, editing or redacting any research publications generated within the Department of Justice; (hh) what role does the Prime Minister’s Office have, if any, in approving, editing or redacting any research publications generated within the Department of Justice; (ii) how many times has research been sent to the Minister's office before its publication within the Department or dissemination otherwise; (jj) what is the value for each research contract awarded in the past 5 years at the Department, broken down by year; (kk) what studies are presently underway at the Department, broken down by division; (ll) how many reports and studies does the Department produce annually and what are their titles; (mm) in the past five years, how much of the research and how many of the studies and reports produced are presented to the Minister, and what percentage of the total is this; (nn) in the past five years, how much of the research and how many of the studies and reports are tabled in Parliament, and what percentage of the total is this; (oo) for each of the past ten years, how many FTE research employees have there been at the Department; (pp) what factors were considered in determining the budget for research at the Department; (qq) what qualifications are required of researchers at the Department; (rr) on what evidence will the Department and Minister make decisions in the absence of research; (ss) what will the consequences of research cuts be on the quality and quantity of information the Department or Minister has; (tt) does the Department track in any way how often its research is accessed and, if so, how; (uu) does the Department track the number of page visits to research materials on its website; (vv) what trends and statistics exist regarding the accessing of studies and research on the Department’s website; (ww) are reports or studies posted online viewed by the Minister’s office prior to their publication and, if so, by what process and with what role for the Minister or his office; (xx) have any reports or studies conducted in the last five years been presented to the Minister that are not online and if so, what are their titles; (yy) what briefing notes, decks, memos, or other materials relating to research have been prepared at the Department in the last five years and what are their file numbers; (zz) within the past five years, what briefing notes, decks, memos, or other materials relating to research funding specifically were created at the Department and what are their file numbers; (aaa) what mechanisms, policies, and processes exist to ensure that research is in no way politicized; (bbb) in what ways does the Department benefit from research, study, and analysis; (ccc) what priorities for research have been identified over the past 10 years and what changes in these priorities have occurred over time; (ddd) how many specific research proposals or studies has the Minister not proceeded with in the past five years, what were the proposed topics of study, and why were these not proceeded with; and how many specific research proposals or studies has the Department not proceeded with in the past five years, what were the proposed topics of study, and why were these not proceeded with; and (eee) what factors influence research funding at the Department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 513--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to Bill C-22, and the government's obligation to enact laws that respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as Supreme Court jurisprudence related to the “polluter pays” principle: (a) in developing the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act included in Part 2 of Bill C-22, on what (i) studies, (ii) case law, (iii) doctrinal sources did the government rely; (b) in developing the changes to Canada’s offshore oil and gas operations regime in Part 1 of Bill C-22, on what (i) studies, (ii) case law, (iii) doctrinal sources did the government rely; (c) what statistics or empirical evidence as to the likelihood and consequences of reactor accidents causing offsite damage did the government rely on to justify (i) the need for the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, (ii) the limitation of reactor operator liability to $1 billion, (iii) the total shielding of reactor suppliers and vendors from liability even if their negligence causes damage; (d) what statistics or empirical evidence as to the likelihood and consequences of accidents in the oil and gas sectors did the government rely on to justify (i) the need for the provisions included in Part 1 of Bill C-22 related to the liability of offshore oil and gas companies, (ii) the maintenance of unlimited liability where fault or negligence is proven, (iii) the raising of the absolute liability limit for Atlantic offshore areas and the Arctic to $1 billion where fault or negligence is not proven; (e) what analysis has the government performed to determine whether the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act will increase or reduce the risk of nuclear facilities to Canadian society and the environment, and what are the conclusions of this analysis; (f) did the government review the causes and contributors of major reactor accidents, such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, in assessing the need and impact of the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, and if so, what are the conclusions of this analysis; (g) has Bill C-22 been examined by the Department of Justice to ascertain consistency with the Charter, and if so, (i) who was responsible for performing the examination, (ii) when was the examination initiated, (iii) when was the examination completed, (iv) what were the conclusions of the examination; (v) when was the Minister of Justice presented with the conclusions of the examination; (vi) was a report of inconsistency prepared; (vii) was a report of inconsistency presented to Parliament; (viii) has there been an assessment of the litigation risk relative to the enactment of this legislation and, if so, what are the conclusions of this assessment; (h) has the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act included in Bill C-22 been examined by the Department of Justice to ascertain consistency with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right of every Canadian to “liberty and security of the person” pursuant to section 7, and if so, (i) did the Department of Justice examine whether the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act’s limitation of reactor operator liability to $1 billion was consistent with the right of every Canadian to “liberty and security of the person”, and what were the conclusions, (ii) did the Department of Justice examine whether the channeling of liability to reactor operators and removal of any liability for damages of reactor suppliers or vendors, even if the negligence causes or contributes to an accident causing offsite damage, was consistent with the right of every Canadian to “liberty and security of the person”, and what were the conclusions; (i) has the Department of Justice evaluated whether the inclusion of an absolute cap on nuclear reactor operator liability in C-22, regardless of negligence or other tortious conduct, while allowing for claims in tort against oil and gas operators beyond the absolute liability requirement in C-22, meets the provisions of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if so, (i) what were the conclusions; and (j) has the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act included in Bill C-22 been examined by the government to ascertain compliance with the Supreme Court ruling Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment) and if so, what were the conclusions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 515--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to correspondence with federally registered political parties, what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and any registered political party since January 23, 2006, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 516--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the Major Infrastructure Component and the Communities Component of the Building Canada Fund announced in 2007: (a) are applications still being accepted; (b) how much of the funding has been allocated; (c) how much of the funding has been spent; (d) for completed projects, how much less was spent than was allocated; (e) how much of the amount referred to in (d), (i) has been reallocated to new projects, (ii) has not been reallocated to new projects; and (f) how much of each component’s funding is forecast to lapse?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 518--
Mr. Glenn Thibeault:
With regard to the promotion of Canada's travel and tourism sector: broken down by fiscal year since 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, (a) what is the total amount spent by the government on advertising; (b) what is the total amount spent in foreign markets, broken down by individual market; (c) what is the total amount spent on print advertising, broken down by individual market; (d) what is the total amount spent on television advertising, broken down by individual market; (e) what is the total amount spent on radio advertising, broken down by individual market; (f) what is the total spending by the government for online or web advertising; and (g) what is the total amount spent on advertising through (i) Facebook, (ii) Twitter, (iii) Google?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 520--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to Ministers' Regional Offices (MRO) located in each province: broken down by year since 2006, (a) how many full time staff are assigned and based at each MRO; (b) how many part time or casual staff are assigned and based at each MRO; (c) how many contract staff are assigned to work at each MRO; (d) what are the titles and salaries with respect to answers provided in (a), (b) and (c); (e) what is the overall budget to operate each MRO; and (f) what is the list of all staff or titles used in each MRO?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 521--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to Statistics Canada, broken down by survey: for each of the current surveys for which some or all of the data has been collected from April to June 2014, (a) how many participants were selected; (b) how many participants agreed to be surveyed; (c) how many participants declined to be surveyed; (d) how many participants were contacted by letter (i) once, (ii) twice, (iii) three times, (iv) more than three times; (e) what is the average number of times that participants are contacted by letter; (f) how many participants were contacted by telephone (i) once, (ii) twice, (iii) three times, (iv) more than three times; (g) what is the average number of times that participants are contacted by telephone; (h) how many participants who declined to be surveyed were contacted by letter (i) once, (ii) twice, (iii) three times, (iv) more than three times; (i) what is the average number of times that participants who declined to be surveyed were contacted by letter; (j) how many participants who declined to be surveyed were contacted by telephone (i) once, (ii) twice, (iii) three times, (iv) more than three times; (k) what is the average number of times that participants who declined to be surveyed were contacted by telephone; (l) how many participants declined to be surveyed following (i) the first letter, (ii) the second letter, (iii) the third letter, (iv) a subsequent letter, (v) the first contact by telephone, (vi) the second contact by telephone, (vii) the third contact by telephone, (viii) a subsequent contact by telephone; (m) what other forms of communication does Statistics Canada use to contact potential participants, other than letter and telephone calls; (n) what is the policy for dealing with selected participants who have declined to be surveyed at the various stages of contact; (o) what arguments are made at each stage of contact to convince participants to agree to be surveyed; (p) what are the data retention and privacy policies regarding information from (i) participants, (ii) participants who declined to be surveyed; and (q) when was approval granted for the data retention policy regarding information from participants who (i) agreed to be surveyed, (ii) declined to be surveyed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 522--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to the Prime Minister's use of the government owned fleet of aircraft since January 2006 and for each use of the aircraft: (a) what are the passenger manifests for all flights; (b) what are the names and titles of the passengers present on the flight manifest; (c) what were all the departure and arrival points of the aircraft; (d) who requested access to the fleet; (e) who authorized the flight; (f) what repayments or reimbursements were made by passengers as a result of these flights; (g) what is the total cost of these flights; and (h) what is the total cost by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 523--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to government litigation and statutory validity: (a) for each year since 2006, which federal laws had their constitutional validity challenged; (b) what were the names of each of the cases in (a); (c) what was the outcome of each of these cases at each instance, broken down by court or tribunal and province; (d) what was the remedy utilized by the court in each case; (e) in which cases does a right of appeal remain; (f) in how many of the cases where no appeal remains did the government lose its defence of the law; (g) of the cases in (f), which specific provisions of which laws were struck down, by which courts and by which cases; (h) broken down by case referred to in (f), how much did the government spend and what is the breakdown of these costs; (i) in any cases, did the government concede an infringement of a right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (j) of the cases referred to in (i), in which cases did the government assert that the infringement was saved by section 1 of the Charter and in which, if any, did the government concede that an infringement was not saved by section 1; (k) did the government concede, in any case, that a federal law was contrary to the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights; (l) did the government concede, in any case, that a federal law was contrary to the purposes and provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982, other than the Charter; (m) of the cases in (k) and (l), what are their names and citations, sorted by year; (n) in what cases did a court find that a federal law was contrary to the purposes and provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982, other than the Charter; (o) in what cases did a court find that a federal law was contrary to the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights; (p) what are the citations for the cases in (n) and (o); (q) for any case in which a section or provision of federal law was struck down for violating the Charter, the Constitution Act, 1982, or the Canadian Bill of Rights, how has the government responded; (r) in which reference cases was the government’s position not agreed with by the Supreme Court; (s) what is the cost breakdown for the cases in (r); (t) of provisions and sections of laws struck by courts for lack of constitutionality, which have been repealed; (u) what is the government’s approach, plan, and policy with respect to the repeal of legislative provisions found unconstitutional; (v) regarding Reference re: Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, will the government repeal Section 6.1 of the Supreme Court Act (clause 472 of Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2); (w) what is the reason for the decision in (v) and what discussions, consultations, and meetings occurred on this point; (x) by what process would an ultra vires or unconstitutional provision be repealed, such as Section 6.1 of the Supreme Court Act (clause 472 of Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2); (y) what purpose is served by leaving inoperative provisions in statute; (z) what mechanisms exist in the government to identify inoperative legislative provisions; (aa) what mechanisms exist in the government to remove inoperative legislative provisions; (bb) when was the last time inoperative legislative provisions were removed; (cc) in all cases where a provision was struck from legislation, was a report of its constitutionality prepared pursuant to the Department of Justice Act; (dd) where a provision was struck from legislation, was a report of the statute’s constitutionality prepared pursuant to the Department of Justice Act and tabled in the House; (ee) what factors explain why a provision was struck despite a report of its constitutionality being prepared; (ff) what factors explain why a provision was struck yet no report of its possible inconsistency tabled; (gg) what explains the presentation of laws later found unconstitutional despite the reporting requirement in the Department of Justice Act; (hh) in what cases since 2006 has a court, contrary to the contention of the government, read down a law; (ii) in what cases since 2006 has a court, contrary to the contentions of the government, resorted to “reading in”; (jj) what are the citations for the cases in (hh) and (ii) and how much was spent on their defence; (kk) what purposes and policy goals are served by leaving provisions of no force or effect in statute; and (ll) for any of the cases identified in any question herein, did the government ever consider invoking the notwithstanding clause?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 524--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Employment and Social Development Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 525--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Citizenship and Immigration Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 526--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Industry Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 527--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Parks Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 528--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Natural Resources Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 530--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 531--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
With regard to government bills, what is the specific rationale for each coming-into-force provision in Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, which was introduced at first reading on February 4, 2014?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 532--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to government expenditures on media monitoring: what are the details of all spending, by each department and agency, including (i) the nature, (ii) the scope, (iii) the duration, (iv) the contract for media monitoring, (v) the names of the contracted services provided, (vi) the file numbers of all such contracts which have been in force on or since December 12, 2012?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 533--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to government communications since March 24, 2014: (a) for each press release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by any department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code-number, (iv) subject-matter; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed (i) on the web site of the issuing department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (iv), what was the cost of using the service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 534--
Mr. Kennedy Stewart:
With regard to government spending in the constituency of Burnaby—Douglas: what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2011-2012 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the money was received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program from which the funding came, (iv) the ministry responsible, (v) the designated recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 535--
Ms. Annick Papillon:
With regard to government funding: what is the total amount of government funding allocated in the constituency of Québec from fiscal year 2012-2013 up to and including 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. 536--
Ms. Annick Papillon:
With regard to government employees: what is the number of employees in the constituency of Québec from fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 537--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Kashechewan First Nation from 2005 to the present, broken down by year: (a) what were the costs of the overall infrastructure investments, broken down by investment; (b) what were the costs of infrastructure repairs, broken down by repair; (c) how much money was spent on emergency flooding, broken down by item; (d) how much money was spent on repairing and maintaining the dyke, by year; (e) what is the current status of the dyke; and (f) what monies were spent on evacuations and emergency services in each year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 538--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s support to West Africa’s counter-terrorism strategy and efforts to find the Nigerian schoolgirls held by Boko Haram: (a) what support has the government provided to the Economic Community of West African States’ counter-terrorism strategy, broken down by project, including (i) start and end dates, (ii) partner organization, (iii) project rationale; (b) what support has the government provided to build Nigeria’s anti-terrorism capacities, broken down by project, including (i) start and end dates, (ii) partner organization, (iii) project rationale; (c) what specific resources has Canada sent to Nigeria to help search for the Nigerian schoolgirls, and for each resource, what is (i) the monetary value of the contribution, (ii) the date the resource was “on the ground” in Nigeria, (iii) the date until which the resource will stay; (d) in order to be invited to the Paris summit to boost the search for the Nigerian schoolgirls, were invitees required to contribute a certain value, and if so, what was the requirement; (e) did Canada receive an invitation to attend the Paris summit; and (f) did Canada attend the Paris summit, (i) if so, in what capacity, (ii) if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 539--
Mr. Bruce Hyer:
With regard to export permits issued by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (FATDC): (a) what was the total value of export permits for Group 2 goods issued for export in each of the years 2012 and 2013, broken down by recipient country; (b) what is the value of export permits authorized for Export Control List Group 2 items, broken down by Group 2 subgroup item (2-1 to 2-22) for each recipient country in each of the years 2012 and 2013; (c) what is the value of export permits for Export Control List Group 2 items denied in each of the years 2012 and 2013, broken down by recipient country; and (d) will FATDC publish information on export permits annually to coincide with future “Reports on the Export of Military Goods from Canada”, including total values of denials and authorizations, broken down by Group 2 subgroup item for each recipient country?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 540--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the operations of the RCMP in and around the Town of High River, Alberta, between June 20, 2013, and July 12, 2013: (a) what special procedures and measures were implemented, and pursuant to what statutory and policy authorities and declarations were those special procedures and measures implemented; (b) what were the circumstances that informed the decision to engage in a door-to-door search of residences and non-residential buildings, what procedures or special measures were implemented to engage in this search, and pursuant to what statutory or policy authorities were those procedures or special measures implemented; (c) what were the circumstances that informed the decision to engage in entries through the use of force during the course of the door-to-door search of residences and non-residential buildings, what procedures or special measures were implemented to engage in the use of force, and pursuant to what statutory or policy authorities were those procedures or special measures implemented; (d) what organization or organizations were consulted by or provided advice to the RCMP respecting the need for and the conduct of the searches referred to in (b) and (c), (i) what information was sought, if any, by the RCMP from each organization, (ii) what information was provided, if any, to the RCMP by each organization; (e) what criteria were used to determine which residences and non-residential buildings to enter during the conduct of the searches referred to in (b) and (c); (f) what was the total number of residences that were entered by the RCMP during the searches referred to in (b) and what was the total number of residences that were entered by the RCMP during the searches referred to in (c); (g) what was the total number of non-residential buildings that were entered by the RCMP during the searches referred to in (b) and what was the total number of non-residential buildings that were entered by the RCMP during the searches referred to in (c); (h) were any residences or non-residential buildings referred to in (b) and (c) entered multiple times or on multiple dates and, if so, how many residences were entered multiple times or on multiple dates, and for what purposes were the initial entries and subsequent entries made, (i) what measures were taken by the RCMP, regarding each residence entered through the use of force by the RCMP, to ensure that residences were secured against further entry after the RCMP finished searching each residence; (j) did the RCMP allow anyone who was not an RCMP police officer to enter residences during the searches referred to in (b) and (c), (i) if (j) is answered in the affirmative, on a residence-by-residence basis, whom (by name, position and organization) did the RCMP allow into residences and for what purpose, (ii) if (j) is answered in the affirmative, have the home owners been made aware that non-RCMP personnel were allowed into their homes by the RCMP; (k) what information did the RCMP possess prior to the searches referred to in (b) and (c), regarding the presence, in residences and non-residential buildings in and around the Town of High River, of firearms, firearms ammunition, non-firearm weapons, and weapon accessories; (l) in how many cases were legally-stored firearms rendered illegally-stored, as a result of forced entries into residences by the RCMP; (m) during the course of the searches referred to in (b) and (c), what statutory authorization allowed the removal of, (i) legally-stored firearms from residences, (ii) illegally-stored firearms from residences, (iii) legally-stored ammunition from residences, (iv) illegally-stored ammunition from residences, (v) legally-stored weapons other than firearms from residences, (vi) illegally-stored weapons other than firearms from residences, (vii) legally-stored weapon accessories from residences, (viii) illegally-stored weapon accessories from residences; (n) how many of the items mentioned in (m)(i) through (viii), were removed by the RCMP; (o) did the RCMP remove any legally-owned items, other than firearms, ammunition, non-firearms weapons, or weapon accessories from any residences or non-residential buildings during the course of the searches referred to in (b) and (c) and, if so, how many items were removed, what were they, and what statutory and policy authorities allowed the RCMP to do so; (p) did the RCMP remove any illegal items, objects or substances, other than firearms, ammunition, non-firearms weapons, or weapons accessories, from any residences or non-residential buildings during the course of the searches referred to in (b) and (c) and, if so, what items were removed; (q) was a warrant or warrants for the search of residences and non-residential buildings or removal of any personal property, including but not limited to firearms, firearms ammunition, non-firearm weapons, and weapon accessories, ever requested, (i) if (q) is answered affirmatively, are copies of the requests available, (ii) if (q) is answered in the negative, why was no request for a warrant or warrants referred to in (q) made; (r) was a warrant or warrants for the search of residences and non-residential buildings or removal of any personal property, including but not limited to firearms, firearms ammunition, non-firearm weapons and weapon accessories, ever issued, (i) if (r) is answered affirmatively, are copies of the warrant or warrants available, (ii) if (r) is answered in the negative, why was the warrant or warrants not issued; (s) what was the total number of RCMP police officers who took part in the searches referred to in (b) and (c) and were the RCMP police officers conducting the searches referred to in (b) the same as the RCMP conducting the searches in (c) and, if not, what was the reason for the difference; (t) what are the names, ranks, positions, units, and detachments of the officer or officers who authorized or otherwise initiated the (i) searches referred to in (b) and (c), (ii) removal of legally-stored firearms from residences, (iii) removal of illegally-stored firearms from residences, (iv) removal of legally-stored ammunition from residences, (v) removal of illegally-stored ammunition from residences, (vi) removal of legally-stored non-firearms weapons from residences, (vii) removal of illegally-stored non-firearms weapons from residences, (viii) removal of legally-stored weapon accessories from residences, (ix) removal of illegally-stored weapon accessories from residences; (u) did the RCMP gather any information over the course of the searches referred to in (b) and (c) and if so, (i) what information was gathered regarding any firearms, (ii) what information was gathered regarding any ammunition, (iii) what information was gathered regarding any weapon accessories, (iv) what information was gathered regarding any weapons, other than firearms, (v) has any form of database or information record (electronic or physical) been developed which could identify any of the residents, or residences, in and around the Town of High River, based on the presence of firearms, weapons, ammunition or accessories located during the conduct of the searches referred to in (b) and (c), (vi) is any of the information referred to in (u)(i) through (iv) still in existence and, if so, what information is still accessible by the RCMP, or any other government organization, (vii) under what statutory and policy authority did the RCMP have the legal right to gather any information referenced in (u)(i) through (iv), (viii) under what statutory and policy authority does the RCMP have the legal right to keep any information referenced in (u)(i) through (iv), (v) have any charges been laid based on any of the RCMP's findings from the searches referred to in (b) and (c) and, so, what are the charges that have been laid and how many of each type of charge have been laid; (w) have any members of the RCMP been charged or internally-disciplined, and to what degree, regarding, (i) the forced entry into residences or non-residential buildings in and around the Town of High River, (ii) the removal of any items from residences or non-residential buildings in and around the Town of High River; (x) what were the reasons (broken down by case) for (i) all entries (forced or otherwise) into each residence and non-residential building, between the dates of June 24 and July 12, 2013, (ii) all the searches of each residence and non-residential building between the dates of June 24 and July 12, 2013, (iii) the removal of any firearms, ammunition, non-firearms weapons and accessories from each residences and non-residential building, between the dates of June 24 and July 12, 2013; (y) what are the contents of all communications, hard copy or electronic ,including but not limited to, mail, email, fax, text, letter, that have been exchanged between any members of the RCMP, as well as between the RCMP and any government officials, including but not limited to municipal governments, the Alberta provincial government and associated agencies and Crown corporations, the federal government and associated government agencies and Crown corporations, regarding the requirement of the searches referred to in (b) and (c), the conduct of the searches referred to in (b) and (c) and the removal of any items during the course of the searches referred to in (b) and (c); and (z) what is the source of the information provided in the responses to (a) through (y)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 541--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the actions of the RCMP in Alberta, between June 20, 2013 and July 12, 2013: (a) respecting the actions implemented in and around the Town of High River, Alberta, what statutory, regulatory and policy authorities (citing specific clauses) guided the RCMP's emergency response procedures; (b) were the RCMP's emergency response procedures, referred to in section (a), the same as the emergency response procedures used by the RCMP in other municipalities in Alberta, (i) was the RCMP’s removal of firearms, firearms ammunition, non-firearm weapons, and related accessories, during the searches of residences and non-residential buildings in and around the Town of High River a course of action which was used in other communities in Alberta and, if so, where else was this course of action used, and to what extent, (ii) was the RCMP’s decision to temporarily deny the residents of the Town of High River the ability to re-enter the town taken in other municipalities and, if so, what were the dates when the RCMP allowed residents to re-enter, and the circumstances which allowed re-entry, for each affected municipality, (iii) if (b) is answered in the negative, what were all of the differences in standard response procedures used by the RCMP in each municipality and the reasons for the differences; (c) during the RCMP's emergency response procedures implemented in and around the Town of High River, did the RCMP locate any people and, if so, (i) how many of the people located by the RCMP required assistance and how many were given assistance by the RCMP, (ii) how many people were located by the RCMP, or assisted by the RCMP, as a direct result of the RCMP's searching of residential or non-residential buildings, in and around the Town of High River, (iii) how many people were located by the RCMP, or assisted by the RCMP, as a result of the RCMP's forced entry into residential or non-residential buildings in and around the Town of High River, (iv) what forms of assistance were provided to anyone who was found through the RCMP's searching of residential or non-residential buildings in and around the Town of High River; (d) on what specific dates did the RCMP locate any people or domesticated animals, in and around the Town of High River, (i) through the searching of residences, (ii) through the searching of non-residential buildings, (iii) through the forced entry into residences, (iv) through the forced entry into non-residential buildings; (e) on June 20, 2013, what was the RCMP's standard procedure when responding to a natural disaster, and the declaration of a state of emergency, (i) regarding searching residences and non-residential buildings for people or domesticated animals, (ii) regarding forced entry into residences and non-residential-buildings, while searching for people and domesticated animals, (iii) regarding the removal of valuable items discovered when searching residences and non-residential buildings for people or domesticated animals, (iv) regarding legally-stored firearms, ammunition, non-firearm weapons, or weapons accessories, which are located by the RCMP in residences and non-residential buildings, while searching, through forced entry or otherwise, for people or domesticated animals, (v) regarding illegally-stored firearms, ammunition, non-firearm weapons, or weapons accessories, which are located by the RCMP in residences and non-residential buildings, while searching, through forced entry or otherwise, for people or domesticated animals, (vi) regarding securing a residence or non-residential building, after being subject to forced entry by the RCMP, (vii) when was the procedure created and last amended; (f) did the RCMP have thermal imaging technology available for their use in and around the Town of High River, (i) if (f) is answered in the affirmative, how was the technology employed in and around the Town of High River, (ii) was the technology capable of identifying the presence of people or domesticated animals in residences or non-residential buildings without physically entering the buildings, and if not, why not and how was this determination reached; (g) what are the contents of all communications, hard copy or electronic including, but not limited to, mail, email, fax, text, letter, that have been exchanged between any members of the RCMP, as well as between the RCMP and any government officials including, but not limited to, municipal governments, the Alberta provincial government and associated government agencies and Crown corporations, the federal government and associated government agencies and Crown corporations, regarding the end of the state of emergency in all affected areas and the denial of re-entry of citizens in all affected areas; (h) what are the contents of the minutes of all the meetings attended by the RCMP with respect to the operations in and around the Town of High River; (i) on what date and time were any states of emergency or declarations pertaining to the Town of High River lifted; (j) on what date and time and by what means were the residents of the Town of High River notified of their ability to re-enter the town; and (k) what are the sources of the answers provided in (a) through (j)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 542--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to maternal newborn and child health (MNCH) and Canada’s strategy “Saving Every Woman, Every Child: Within Arm’s Reach”: (a) will the additional $650 million for 2015-2020 over 2010-2015 spending be drawn from the existing Official Development Assistance (ODA) envelope or is it in addition to the existing ODA envelope; (b) how does the government plan to expand its current health and nutrition programming to address the needs of adolescent girls as per the Toronto Statement; (c) will the government develop a well-rounded, gender-equitable, and effective MNCH strategy that includes family planning and the full range of reproductive health services, (i) if not, why not; (d) how will the government involve women in developing countries in the design and implementation of women’s health strategies; (e) will the government invest in the broader agenda of women’s and children’s rights in its development work; (f) why did the government not adopt the global consensus to add reproductive health to maternal, newborn and child health; (g) what monies will be devoted to (i) reducing the burden of leading diseases, (ii) improving nutrition, (iii) strengthening health systems and accountability, (iv) strengthening vital and civil statistics; (h) in what select developing countries will Canada focus its Forward Strategy for Saving Every Woman Every Child, and specifically (i) how does the government define high-impact health services, (ii) what specific high-impact interventions are included in Canada’s Forward Strategy, (iii) what pre-pregnancy health services and interventions will the government focus on; (i) how does the government measure effectiveness of health systems projects, and when will the government report on effectiveness; (j) how will the government prioritize those countries and issues where concrete results can be attained for the world’s most vulnerable women and children, (i) how will the Forward Strategy adhere to the Commission on Information and Accountability, (ii) what concrete outcome results will the Forward Strategy achieve, (iii) how does the government define the world’s most vulnerable women and children; (k) what is the government currently investing in vaccines; (l) what are “the most effective life-saving vaccines and medicines” that Canada supports; (m) how will Canada build on its recent commitments to (i) the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, (ii) the Global Polio Eradication Initiative; (n) how will the government determine who are “the partners most proven to achieve results for women and children”; (o) define and specify the government’s food security partnerships; (p) define and specify the government’s MNCH partnerships; (q) as of the announced day of the Forward Strategy, what role and activities will the government undertake with respect to the Scaling Up Nutrition movement; (r) how will the government determine who are like-minded partners, (i) how will it determine which countries and partners are able to deliver the package of integrated nutrition interventions that represents the best return on development investment, (ii) what has been the process to determine the package of integrated nutrition interventions, (iii) what are the integrated nutrition interventions the government will support, (iv) what are the expected nutrition outcomes and return on investment expected of the Forward Strategy; (s) what monies will be devoted to support country partners’ efforts tostrengthen their civil registration and vital statistics systems, and how are these monies expected to improve (i) national documentation to help secure and safeguard an individual’s rights, (ii) the delivery of health services, (iii) participatory approaches that include community-based monitoring systems; (t) when will consultations take place with (i) Canadian experts, (ii) international experts, (iii) partner countries to inform new investments; (u) how will rights-based organizations be included in the consultations; (v) what additional support will be provided to the Canadian Network for Maternal Newborn and Child Health, and for what time period; and (w) how will Canada push to ensure that MNCH features prominently in the post-2015 development agenda, (i) which health, hunger and nutrition goals and indicators will the government support, (ii) in which global forums will the government promote MNCH in the post-2015 development agenda?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 543--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With respect to the appointment of Justice Clément Gascon to the Supreme Court of Canada: (a) by what process was Justice Gascon identified and selected for appointment; (b) what was the role of the Department of Justice; (c) what was the role of the Minister of Justice; (d) what was the role of the Prime Minister; (e) what was the role of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs; (f) were any other ministers involved and if so what were their roles; (g) with whom did the government consult and when did these consultations occur; (h) what was the role of Parliament; (i) why was no ad hoc committee convened to meet Justice Gascon prior to his appointment; (j) what specific considerations were taken with respect to (i); (k) who made the ultimate decision with respect to (i); (l) has the government abolished the ad hoc committee process for reviewing Supreme Court nominees; (m) if the ad hoc committee meeting for new Supreme Court nominees has not been abolished, why did it not occur with Justice Gascon prior to his appointment; (n) will Justice Gascon appear before Parliament at any point relative to his appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada; (o) what specific criteria were established by which candidates were evaluated in the process by which Justice Gascon was selected; (p) how did Justice Gascon meet the criteria in (o); (q) why was Justice Gascon selected; (r) was preserving gender parity on the Supreme Court of Canada a goal of the process that resulted in the appointment of Justice Gascon; (s) what consideration was preserving gender parity on the Supreme Court of Canada in the process that resulted in the appointment of Justice Gascon; (t) in what ways does Justice Gascon’s appointment preserve gender parity on the Supreme Court of Canada; (u) in what ways does Justice Gascon’s appointment enhance diversity on the Supreme Court of Canada; (v) what particular areas of expertise were identified in the process that resulted in Gascon’s appointment; (w) how were the areas in (v) developed; (x) what is known of Justice Gascon’s expertise in the areas identified in (v); (y) what Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada were consulted with respect to Justice Gascon’s appointment; (z) did consultation with the Chief Justice occur regarding Justice Gascon; (aa) is consultation with Chief Justice a normal practice in the course of selecting a nominee for the Supreme Court of Canada; (bb) what role is served by consulting with the Chief Justice or, if no such consultation occurred in this instance, what policy reasons justify excluding the Chief Justice from consultations; (cc) would there have been time for Parliamentarians to meet Justice Gascon prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court; (dd) with which parliamentarians did Justice Gascon meet prior to his appointment; (ee) what committees reviewed Justice Gascon’s candidacy prior to his appointment; (ff) was Justice Gascon identified in the process that resulted in the nomination of Justice Nadon; (gg) at what stages of the process was Justice Gascon’s eligibility for appointment assessed and by whom; (hh) does the answer in (gg) reflect any new process or procedure; (ii) with respect to Justice Minister Peter Mackay’s statement as reported by CTV on May 28 that “Our list and their list are being examined in concert to find a common name,” was the name of Justice Gascon common to both lists; (jj) how was the “our” list to which Minister MacKay referred developed; (kk) how many names were on “our” list; (ll) what went into selecting the names on “our” list and who was involved in this process; (mm) was the “our” list to which Minister MacKay referred developed through the process announced by previous Justice Minister Rob Nicholson on June 11, 2013 and if not, why not; (nn) with respect to the “their list” of which the Minister spoke, who developed this list and when was it provided to the government; (oo) did the government solicit in any way “their list”; (pp) how was “their list” assessed, by whom, and on what dates; (qq) how many names were on “their list”; (rr) what individuals were involved in the process that “examined in concert to find a common name” the lists referred to by the Minister; (ss) how long did the process in (mm) require and when did it terminate; (tt) were any outside legal opinions sought with respect to Justice Gascon’s appointment, why or why not; (uu) what was the cost of Justice Gascon’s appointment and what is the breakdown of these costs; (vv) if any of the answers to these questions are subject to solicitor-client privilege, who is the solicitor and the client for the particular question; (ww) who from the Government of Quebec was consulted on Gascon’s appointment, on what dates, and by whom; (xx) when were the Chief Justice of Quebec and the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court consulted on Gascon’s appointment and by whom; (yy) who from the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, and the Barreau de Montréal were consulted on Gascon’s appointment and by whom; (zz) what academics were consulted, by whom and on what dates; (aaa) what victims’ rights groups were consulted, by whom, and on what dates; (bbb) what aboriginal groups were consulted, by whom, and on what dates; (ccc) what women’s groups were consulted, by who, and on what dates; (ddd) whereas in the past candidates have been first nominated and then appointed, was Justice Gascon ever nominated prior to his appointment by the government, and if so, when did this occur, if not why not; (eee) what changes to the process have been identified or completed through this appointment; (fff) what factors were considered relative to the timing of this appointment; (ggg) who decided the timing of the appointment announcement and in consultation with whom; (hhh) what benefits were derived from appointing Justice Gascon prior to a Parliamentary ad hoc hearing; (iii) what benefits were derived from appointing Justice Gascon prior to the end of the scheduled Parliamentary sitting; (jjj) why was the appointment announced while Parliament was still sitting but without an ad hoc hearing; and (kkk) why was the appointment announced so far in advance of the Court’s fall session; and (lll) is it anticipated the same appointment process will be used for the next vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 545--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to post offices: (a) which post offices are subject to the 1994 moratorium on post office closures, broken down by (i) province, (ii) municipality, (iii) federal riding, (iv) address; (b) which post offices are not subject to the 1994 moratorium on post office closures, broken down by (i) province, (ii) municipality, (iii) federal riding, (iv) address; (c) since 2006, how many times has Canada Post changed its original proposed plan to reduce hours, move, close, or amalgamate a post office following a consultation period, broken down by (i) province, (ii) municipality, (iii) federal riding, (iv) address, (v) original proposed plan, (vi) changed plan following consultation; and (d) since 2006, how many times has Canada Post followed through with its original proposed plan to reduce hours, move, close, or amalgamate a post office following a consultation period, broken down by (i) province, (ii) municipality, (iii) federal riding, (iv) address?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 546--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Veterans Affairs Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 547--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to government expenditures associated with the National Day of Honour on May 9, 2014: (a) what is the total cost; (b) what is the cost and nature of each individual associated expenditure; (c) what is the breakdown of these expenditures, by (i) government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, other government body, program activity and sub-program activity, (ii) category; (d) what was the total cost to transport veterans and their families to Ottawa for the ceremony; (e) what is the cost and nature of each individual expenditure associated with the transporting of veterans and their families to Ottawa for the ceremony; (f) what is the breakdown of the expenditures in (e), by (i) government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) program activity, (iii) category; (g) what are any expenditures associated with the National Day of Honour that have not been itemized in (a) to (f); and (h) for all related contracts, what were the (i) vendors’ names, (ii) contracts’ reference numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts’ values, (vii) final contracts’ values if different from the original contracts’ values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 550--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the disposition of government assets since January 1, 2006: (a) on how many occasions has the government repurchased or reacquired a lot which had been disposed of in accordance with the Treasury Board Directive on the Disposal of Surplus Materiel; and (b) for each such occasion, what was (i) the description or nature of the item or items which constituted the lot, (ii) the sale account number or other reference number, (iii) the date on which the sale closed, (iv) the price at which the item was disposed of to the buyer, (v) the price at which the item was repurchased from the buyer, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 551--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Public Works and Government Services Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 552--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the backdrops used by the government for announcements since June 19, 2012: 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. 553--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With respect to national parks and historic sites, for each of the following locations, namely, Abbot Pass Refuge Cabin National Historic Site, Alberta; Athabasca Pass National Historic Site, Alberta; Banff National Park, Alberta; Banff Park Museum National Historic Site, Alberta; Bar U Ranch National Historic Site, Alberta; Cave and Basin National Historic Site, Alberta; Elk Island National Park, Alberta; First Oil Well in Western Canada National Historic Site, Alberta; Frog Lake National Historic Site, Alberta; Howse Pass National Historic Site, Alberta; Jasper National Park, Alberta; Jasper House National Historic Site, Alberta; Jasper Park Information Centre National Historic Site, Alberta; Rocky Mountain House National Historic Site, Alberta; Skoki Ski Lodge National Historic Site, Alberta; Sulphur Mountain Cosmic Ray Station National Historic Site, Alberta; Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta; Wood Buffalo National Park, Alberta; Yellowhead Pass National Historic Site, Alberta; Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site, British Columbia; Fisgard Lighthouse National Historic Site, British Columbia; Fort Langley National Historic Site, British Columbia; Fort Rodd Hill National Historic Site, British Columbia; Fort St. James National Historic Site, British Columbia; Gitwangak Battle Hill National Historic Site, British Columbia; Glacier National Park, British Columbia; Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, British Columbia; Gulf of Georgia Cannery National Historic Site, British Columbia; Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, British Columbia; Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve, British Columbia; Kicking Horse Pass National Historic Site, British Columbia; Kootenae House National Historic Site, British Columbia; Kootenay National Park, British Columbia; Mount Revelstoke National Park, British Columbia; Nan Sdins National Historic Site, British Columbia; Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, British Columbia; Rogers Pass National Historic Site, British Columbia; Stanley Park National Historic Site, British Columbia; Twin Falls Tea House National Historic Site, British Columbia; Yoho National Park, British Columbia; Forts Rouge, Garry and Gibraltar National Historic Site, Manitoba; Linear Mounds National Historic Site, Manitoba; Lower Fort Garry National Historic Site, Manitoba; Prince of Wales Fort National Historic Site, Manitoba; Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba; Riding Mountain Park East Gate Registration Complex National Historic Site, Manitoba; Riel House National Historic Site, Manitoba; St. Andrew's Rectory National Historic Site, Manitoba; The Forks National Historic Site, Manitoba; Wapusk National Park, Manitoba; York Factory National Historic Site, Manitoba; Beaubears Island Shipbuilding National Historic Site, New Brunswick; Boishébert National Historic Site, New Brunswick; Carleton Martello Tower National Historic Site, New Brunswick; Fort Beauséjour – Fort Cumberland National Historic Site, New Brunswick; Fort Gaspareaux National Historic Site, New Brunswick; Fundy National Park, New Brunswick; Kouchibouguac National Park, New Brunswick; La Coupe Dry Dock National Historic Site, New Brunswick; Monument-Lefebvre National Historic Site, New Brunswick; Saint Croix Island International Historic Site, New Brunswick; St. Andrews Blockhouse National Historic Site, New Brunswick; Cape Spear Lighthouse National Historic Site, Newfoundland and Labrador; Castle Hill National Historic Site, Newfoundland and Labrador; Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland and Labrador; Hawthorne Cottage National Historic Site, Newfoundland and Labrador; Hopedale Mission National Historic Site, Newfoundland and Labrador; L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site, Newfoundland and Labrador; Port au Choix National Historic Site, Newfoundland and Labrador; Red Bay National Historic Site, Newfoundland and Labrador; Ryan Premises National Historic Site, Newfoundland and Labrador; Signal Hill National Historic Site, Newfoundland and Labrador; Terra Nova National Park, Newfoundland and Labrador; Torngat Mountains National Park, Newfoundland and Labrador; Aulavik National Park, Northwest Territories; Nahanni National Park Reserve, Northwest Territories; Sahoyué-§ehdacho National Historic Site, Northwest Territories; Tuktut Nogait National Park, Northwest Territories; Wood Buffalo National Park, Northwest Territories; Alexander Graham Bell National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Beaubassin National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Bloody Creek National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Canso Islands National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Cape Breton Highlands National Park, Nova Scotia; Charles Fort National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; D'Anville's Encampment National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Fort Anne National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Fort Edward National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Fort Lawrence National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Fort McNab National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Fort Sainte Marie de Grace National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Georges Island National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Grand-Pré National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Grassy Island Fort National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Halifax Citadel National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Kejimkujik National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Kejimkujik National Park, Nova Scotia; Marconi National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Melanson Settlement National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Port-Royal National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Prince of Wales Tower National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Royal Battery National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; St. Peters National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; St. Peters Canal National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; The Bank Fishery - The Age of Sail Exhibit, Nova Scotia; Wolfe's Landing National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; York Redoubt National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Auyuittuq National Park, Nunavut; Quttinirpaaq National Park, Nunavut; Sirmilik National Park, Nunavut; Ukkusiksalik National Park, Nunavut; Battle Hill National Historic Site, Ontario; Battle of Cook's Mills National Historic Site, Ontario; Battle of the Windmill National Historic Site, Ontario; Battlefield of Fort George National Historic Site, Ontario; Bellevue House National Historic Site, Ontario; Bethune Memorial House National Historic Site, Ontario; Bois Blanc Island Lighthouse and Blockhouse National Historic Site, Ontario; Bruce Peninsula National Park, Ontario; Butler's Barracks National Historic Site, Ontario; Carrying Place of the Bay of Quinte National Historic Site, Ontario; Fathom Five National Marine Park of Canada, Ontario; Fort George National Historic Site, Ontario; Fort Henry National Historic Site, Ontario; Fort Malden National Historic Site, Ontario; Fort Mississauga National Historic Site, Ontario; Fort St. Joseph National Historic Site, Ontario; Fort Wellington National Historic Site, Ontario; Georgian Bay Islands National Park, Ontario; Glengarry Cairn National Historic Site, Ontario; HMCS Haida National Historic Site, Ontario; Inverarden House National Historic Site, Ontario; Kingston Fortifications National Historic Site, Ontario; Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area of Canada, Ontario; Laurier House National Historic Site, Ontario; Merrickville Blockhouse National Historic Site, Ontario; Mississauga Point Lighthouse National Historic Site, Ontario; Mnjikaning Fish Weirs National Historic Site, Ontario; Murney Tower National Historic Site, Ontario; Navy Island National Historic Site, Ontario; Peterborough Lift Lock National Historic Site, Ontario; Point Clark Lighthouse National Historic Site, Ontario; Point Pelee National Park, Ontario; Pukaskwa National Park, Ontario; Queenston Heights National Historic Site, Ontario; Rideau Canal National Historic Site, Ontario; Ridgeway Battlefield National Historic Site, Ontario; Saint-Louis Mission National Historic Site, Ontario; Sault Ste. Marie Canal National Historic Site, Ontario; Shoal Tower National Historic Site, Ontario; Sir John Johnson House National Historic Site, Ontario; Southwold Earthworks National Historic Site, Ontario; St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Ontario; Trent–Severn Waterway National Historic Site, Ontario; Waterloo Pioneers Memorial Tower National Historic Site, Ontario; Woodside National Historic Site, Ontario; Ardgowan National Historic Site, Prince Edward Island; Dalvay-by-the-Sea National Historic Site, Prince Edward Island; Green Gables Heritage Place, Prince Edward Island; L.M. Montgomery's Cavendish National Historic Site, Prince Edward Island; Port-la-Joye–Fort Amherst National Historic Site, Prince Edward Island; Prince Edward Island National Park, Prince Edward Island; Province House National Historic Site, Prince Edward Island; 57-63 St. Louis Street National Historic Site, Quebec; Battle of the Châteauguay National Historic Site, Quebec; Battle of the Restigouche National Historic Site, Quebec; Carillon Barracks National Historic Site, Quebec; Carillon Canal National Historic Site, Quebec; Cartier-Brébeuf National Historic Site, Quebec; Chambly Canal National Historic Site, Quebec; Coteau-du-Lac National Historic Site, Quebec; Forges du Saint-Maurice National Historic Site, Quebec; Forillon National Park, Quebec; Fort Chambly National Historic Site, Quebec; Fort Lennox National Historic Site, Quebec; Fort Ste. Thérèse National Historic Site, Quebec; Fort Témiscamingue National Historic Site, Quebec; Fortifications of Québec National Historic Site, Quebec; Grande-Grave, Quebec; Grosse Île and the Irish Memorial National Historic Site, Quebec; La Mauricie National Park, Quebec; Lachine Canal National Historic Site, Quebec; Lévis Forts National Historic Site, Quebec; Louis S. St. Laurent National Historic Site, Quebec; Louis-Joseph Papineau National Historic Site, Quebec; Maillou House National Historic Site, Quebec; Manoir Papineau National Historic Site, Quebec; Mingan Archipelago National Park Reserve, Quebec; Montmorency Park National Historic Site, Quebec; Pointe-au-Père Lighthouse National Historic Site, Quebec; Québec Garrison Club National Historic Site, Quebec; Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, Quebec; Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Canal National Historic Site, Quebec; Saint-Louis Forts and Châteaux National Historic Site, Quebec; Saint-Ours Canal National Historic Site, Quebec; Sir George-Étienne Cartier National Historic Site, Quebec; Sir Wilfrid Laurier National Historic Site, Quebec; The Fur Trade at Lachine National Historic Site, Quebec; Batoche National Historic Site, Saskatchewan; Battle of Tourond's Coulee / Fish Creek National Historic Site, Saskatchewan; Cypress Hills Massacre National Historic Site, SKFort Battleford National Historic Site, Saskatchewan; Fort Espérance National Historic Site, Saskatchewan; Fort Livingstone National Historic Site, Saskatchewan; Fort Pelly National Historic Site, Saskatchewan; Fort Walsh National Historic Site, Saskatchewan; Frenchman Butte National Historic Site, Saskatchewan; Grasslands National Park, Saskatchewan; Motherwell Homestead National Historic Site, Saskatchewan; Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan; Dawson Historical Complex National Historic Site, Yukon; Dredge No. 4 National Historic Site, Yukon; Former Territorial Court House National Historic Site, Yukon; Ivvavik National Park, Yukon; Kluane National Park and Reserve, Yukon; S.S. Keno National Historic Site, Yukon; S.S. Klondike National Historic Site, Yukon; and Vuntut National Park, Yukon: during each of the 2012 and 2013 operating seasons, what was the total employment, broken down by (i) full-time, (ii) part-time, (iii) seasonal employees?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 554--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to materials prepared for deputy heads or their staff from January 23, 2014 to present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 555--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to materials prepared for Assistant Deputy Ministers from January 23, 2014 to present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 556--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to government advertising: (a) how much has each department, agency, or Crown corporation spent to purchase advertising on Facebook in each fiscal year since 2006-2007 inclusive; (b) what was the (i) nature, (ii) purpose, (iii) target audience or demographic, (iv) cost of each individual advertising purchase; (c) what was the Media Authorization Number for each advertising purchase; and (d) what are the file numbers of all documents, reports, or memoranda concerning each advertising purchase or of any post-campaign assessment or evaluation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 557--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Veterans Affairs Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 558--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 560--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Western Economic Diversification Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 561--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) how many veterans have been hired at VAC and any other government department in each year since 2006; (b) for each year, how many of these were medically released members of the Canadian Forces hired in priority through the Public Service Commission; (c) what percentage of all hires at VAC since 2006 have been veterans; and (d) what specific efforts are being made by the Department to increase the number and percentage of veterans working within VAC?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 562--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With respect to legal action against the government regarding the Veterans Charter: (a) what is the total amount of money spent by all departments and agencies, broken down by department and agency, since January 1, 2010, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' class action lawsuit; and (b) what is the total amount of money all departments and agencies have spent to hire outside legal counsel, broken down by department and agency, for the same time period referred to in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 563--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to government expenditures on media monitoring: for every contract entered into, or in force, on or since March 21, 2013, what search terms were required to be monitored?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 564--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to materials prepared for ministers or their staff, from January 23, 2014 to present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 565--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to the government’s immigration commitments in response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Typhoon Haiyan, for each event: (a) on what date did applications open for persons affected by the crisis; (b) how many applications has the government received since that date; (c) how many applications (i) have been approved, (ii) have been rejected, (iii) are still awaiting a final answer; and (d) when is the government ending these special measures?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 566--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) Deficit Reduction Action Plan (DRAP) Track 19: Outsourcing Research Capability of Contaminant Research: (a) is the government’s objective to cease all biological effects contaminant research within DFO and if so, what are the reasons for this objective; (b) how many employees have been eliminated due to this objective and what are their positions and locations; (c) what programs or research initiatives are affected by this objective, including a detailed breakdown of how programs or research have been affected; (d) has the government established a small advisory group to oversee the outsourcing of research needs and, if so, what are the details of this advisory group, including (i) the date the advisory group was established, (ii) the number of members, (iii) their names, (vi) their position, (v) their background experience, (vi) their location, (vii) the internal tracking number and detailed information of any advice or recommendations the advisory group has provided to the government to date, (viii) the amount and details of any federal funding provided to the advisory group; and (e) were briefing documents related to or referencing the outsourcing of research capability of contaminant research prepared for all departmental officials at the Associate Deputy Minister level and above, from October 31, 2012 to the present and, for each document, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject-matter, (iii) Department's internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 567--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to departmental procurement through CORCAN between fiscal year 2005-2006 and fiscal year 2012-2013: (a) what departments have purchased products through CORCAN; (b) what was the value of each department's procurement in each of the fiscal years; and (c) for each purchase, (i) what was the location or facility for which the purchase was made, (ii) was the procurement sole-sourced or put out to tender, (iii) was a quote requested from one or more private sector firms before purchasing the product from CORCAN?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 569--
Mr. Murray Rankin:
With regard to Old Age Security (OAS) pension and benefit appeals: (a) how many appeals were made to the OAS Review Tribunal between 2004 and 2013, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) appeals granted by the Department before a hearing was held, (vii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (viii) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (ix) appeals which were heard within 3 months of receipt of appeal notice, (x) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xi) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xii) appeals which were heard within 12 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiii) appeals which took more than 12 months to be heard; (b) how many hearings were held by the OAS Review Tribunal each year from 2004 to 2013, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (c) how many appeals were made to the Pension Appeals Board between 2004 and 2013, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals made by clients, (v) appeals made by the Department, (vi) appeals resulting in an overturn of the OAS Review Tribunal’s decision, (vii) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the OAS Review Tribunal’s decision, (viii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (ix) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (x) appeals which were heard within 3 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xi) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xii) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiii) appeals which were heard within 12 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 18 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which took more than 18 months after receipt of appeal notice to be heard; (d) how many hearings were held by the Pension Appeals Board in each year from 2004 to 2013, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (e) how many requests for reconsideration were made to the Department in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) requests resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) requests not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) reviews which took place within 30 days of receipt of the request, (vii) reviews which took place within 60 days of receipt of the request, (viii) reviews which took more than 60 days to complete; (f) how many people requesting a reconsideration from the Department and requesting their case file from the Department received their case file (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after making the request; (g) how many people requesting a reconsideration from the Department and requesting their case file from the Department were refused their case file, broken down by province; (h) how many applicants requesting a reconsideration by the Department were notified by phone of the outcome of their request and how many were notified by letter; (i) how many appeals were made to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal regarding OAS pensions and benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals resulting in a summary dismissal, (v) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (viii) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (ix) appeals which were decided on the record, (x) appeals which were heard in writing, (xi) appeals which were heard over the phone, (xii) appeals which were heard in person, (xiii) appeals for which travel costs were granted to the appellant, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvi) appeals which were heard within 90 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which were heard within 4 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xviii) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xix) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xx) appeals which took more than 9 months to be heard; (j) in how many cases was the Department informed by the Social Security Tribunal of a notice of appeal (i) within 7 days of receiving the notice, (ii) within 14 days of receiving the notice, (iii) within 21 days of receiving the notice, (iv) within 30 days of receiving the notice, (v) more than 30 days after receiving the notice; (k) how many hearings were held by the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal in 2013-14, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (l) how many cases are currently waiting to be heard by the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal; (m) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal received their case file from the Department (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after making the request; (n) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal were refused their case file by the Department, broken down by province; (o) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal were sent an acknowledgement of receipt of their notice of appeal (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after notice was sent; (p) how many appeals were made to the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal regarding Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits in 2013-1014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) cases where leave is not granted to appeal, (v) appeals filed by the Department, (vi) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Income Security Section’s decision, (vii) cases not resulting in an overturn of the Income Security Section’s decision, (viii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing is held, (ix) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (x) appeals which were decided on the record, (xi) appeals which were heard over the phone, (xii) appeals which were heard in person, (xiii) appeals for which travel costs were granted to the appellant, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvi) appeals which were heard within 90 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xviii) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which took more than 9 months to be heard; (q) how many hearings were held by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal regarding OAS pensions and benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (r) how many cases are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal; (s) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about communications sent to an appellant rather than to a third-party where requested; (t) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about logistical problems with hearings held by teleconference; (u) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about the Notice of Readiness system; and (v) how many requests for postponement has the Social Security Tribunal received after a Notice of Readiness has been filed by the appellant?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 570--
Mr. Murray Rankin:
With regard to Canada Pension Plan (CPP) pension and benefit appeals: (a) how many appeals were made to the CPP Review Tribunal between 2004 and 2013, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) appeals granted by the Department before a hearing was held, (vii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (viii) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (ix) appeals which were heard within 3 months of receipt of appeal notice, (x) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xi) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xii) appeals which were heard within 12 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiii) appeals which took more than 12 months to be heard; (b) how many hearings were held by the CPP Review Tribunal each year from 2004 to 2013, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (c) how many appeals were made to the Pension Appeals Board between 2004 and 2013, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals made by clients, (v) appeals made by the Department, (vi) appeals resulting in an overturn of the CPP Review Tribunal’s decision, (vii) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the CPP Review Tribunal’s decision, (viii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (ix) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (x) appeals which were heard within 3 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xi) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xii) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiii) appeals which were heard within 12 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 18 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which took more than 18 months after receipt of appeal notice to be heard; (d) how many hearings were held by the Pension Appeals Board in each year from 2004 to 2013, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (e) how many requests for reconsideration were made to the Department in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) requests resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) requests not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) reviews which took place within 30 days of receipt of the request, (vii) reviews which took place within 60 days of receipt of the request, (viii) reviews which took more than 60 days to complete; (f) how many people requesting a reconsideration from the Department and requesting their case file from the Department received their case file (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after making the request; (g) how many people requesting a reconsideration from the Department and requesting their case file from the Department were refused their case file, broken down by province; (h) how many applicants requesting a reconsideration by the Department were notified by phone of the outcome of their request and how many were notified by letter; (i) how many appeals were made to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal regarding CPP pensions and benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals resulting in a summary dismissal, (v) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (viii) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (ix) appeals which were decided on the record, (x) appeals which were heard in writing, (xi) appeals which were heard over the phone, (xii) appeals which were heard in person, (xiii) appeals for which travel costs were granted to the appellant, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvi) appeals which were heard within 90 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which were heard within 4 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xviii) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xix) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xx) appeals which took more than 9 months to be heard; (j) in how many cases was the Department informed by the Social Security Tribunal of a notice of appeal (i) within 7 days of receiving the notice, (ii) within 14 days of receiving the notice, (iii) within 21 days of receiving the notice, (iv) within 30 days of receiving the notice, (v) more than 30 days after receiving the notice; (k) how many hearings were held by the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (l) how many cases are currently waiting to be heard by the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal; (m) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal received their case file from the Department (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after making the request; (n) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal were refused their case file by the Department, broken down by province; (o) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal were sent an acknowledgement of receipt of their notice of appeal (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after making the request; (p) how many appeals were made to the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal regarding CPP pensions and benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) cases where leave is not granted to appeal, (v) appeals filed by the Department, (vi) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Income Security Section’s decision, (vii) cases not resulting in an overturn of the Income Security Section’s decision, (viii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing is held, (ix) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (x) appeals which were decided on the record, (xi) appeals which were heard over the phone, (xii) appeals which were heard in person, (xiii) appeals for which travel costs were granted to the appellant, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvi) appeals which were heard within 90 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xviii) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which took more than 9 months to be heard; (q) how many hearings were held by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal regarding CPP pensions and benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (r) how many cases are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal; (s) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about communications sent to an appellant rather than to a third-party where requested; (t) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about logistical problems with hearings held by teleconference; (u) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about the Notice of Readiness system; and (v) how many requests for postponement has the Social Security Tribunal received after a Notice of Readiness has been filed by the appellant?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 573--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Finance and the 8.5% Hibernia share held by the government: (a) how many offers, both domestic and foreign, have been made for the 8.5% Hibernia share; (b) what has been the monetary range of these offers; (c) what did the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador offer; and (d) how much profit did the federal government make over the past 10 years from its share?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 575--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With respect to Canada’s participation in the High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, held in Mexico City on April 17, 2014: (a) what are the names, titles, and affiliations of all persons who represented Canada at this meeting; and (b) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all documents prepared for the Canadian delegations or representatives at this meeting, or otherwise in respect of this meeting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 576--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With respect to the National Day of Honour held on May 9, 2014: (a) what are the names, titles, and affiliations of those at the Canadian Legion with whom the Prime Minister’s office consulted in advance of the Day of Honour; (b) what are the names, titles, and affiliations of those persons outside government who were consulted in advance of the National Day of Honour; (c) what are the details of the documents produced to inform the Canadian Legions about the National Day of Honour in advance of the Day; (d) what are the details of the documents produced to inform the Canadian Legion of the schedule, plans, and format of the National Day of Honour; (e) what were the dates and times of meetings for Minister Baird, the minister’s staff, or Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development bureaucrats with representatives of the Canadian Legion concerning the National Day of Honour from March 1, 2012 to May 9, 2014; (f) what were the dates and times of meetings for Minister Nicholson, the minister’s staff, or Department of National Defence bureaucrats with representatives of the Canadian Legion concerning the National Day of Honour from March 1, 2012 to May 9, 2014; (g) what were the dates and times of meetings for the members of the Prime Minister’s Office with representatives of the Canadian Legion concerning the National Day of Honour from March 1, 2012 to May 9, 2014; (h) what are the dates and reference numbers of all briefing materials prepared for any Minister or any member of any Minister’s staff concerning the National Day of Honour?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 577--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With respect to the deportation of foreign nationals from Canada, for each year since 2009 inclusive: (a) how many persons were deported and to which countries; (b) how many were deported after having (i) been deemed a national security threat, (ii) violated immigration rules, (iii) received a criminal conviction; (c) to which countries does the government not deport persons (i) due to concerns of violating the principle of non-refoulement, as codified in international law, (ii) for any other reason, specifying the reason; (d) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all reports, memoranda, or other documents produced for the Minister of Public Safety in determining that persons will not be deported to a particular country or countries; (e) in the case of a country that has well-documented human rights violations, (i) what consideration is given to potential implications for deportees prior to Canadian government officials making final determinations on whether or not to deport persons to that country, (ii) which departments or agencies are involved in such a consideration, (iii) who has the final authority in making a determination; (f) on what basis would the need to deport a person trump concerns for that person's welfare after they are deported; (g) in the case of a country that is in the midst of a civil war or unrest, what consideration is given to this and its potential implications for a deportee prior to making a final determination on whether or not to deport a person; (h) what has been the annual cost in each year since 2009 inclusive of (i) transporting deportees to their destination, (ii) detaining deportees prior to deportation; (i) what is the average time a deportee is in custody prior to deportation; and (j) currently how many people are waiting to be deported?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 578--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With respect to the Clean Energy Ministerial held in May 2014 in South Korea: (a) what are the names, titles, and affiliations of all persons who attended on behalf of Canada; and (b) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all documents prepared for the attendees, or otherwise in respect of Canada’s participation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 579--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With respect to Canadian official delegations to Ukraine in 2014: (a) what are the names, titles, and affiliations of all persons who travelled to Ukraine as part of these delegations; and (b) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all documents prepared for or in respect of these delegations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 580--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the Government Operations Centre, for each protest or demonstration reported to the Centre by government departments or agencies since January 1, 2006, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) description or nature, and (iv) department or agency making the report?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 581--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With respect to Canada’s participation in the Organization of American States (OAS), since April 2010: (a) what are the names, titles, and affiliations of all persons who have represented Canada at events or meetings related to the OAS; and (b) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all documents prepared for the Canadian delegations or representatives, or otherwise in respect of such events or meetings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 582--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the use of government-issued credit cards by Ministerial exempt staff, for each Minister since May 31, 2012: (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. 583--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to government advertising: (a) how much has each department, agency, or Crown corporation spent to purchase advertising on Xbox, Xbox 360, or Xbox One in each fiscal year since 2006-2007 inclusive; (b) what was the (i) nature, (ii) purpose, (iii) target audience or demographic, (iv) cost of each individual advertising purchase; (c) what was the Media Authorization Number for each advertising purchase; and (d) what are the file numbers of all documents, reports, or memoranda concerning each advertising purchase or of any post-campaign assessment or evaluation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 584--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With respect to government advertising, for each television advertisement which has been aired during National Hockey League playoff game broadcasts since January 1, 2006: what is the (a) identification number, name or ADV number; (b) number of times each advertisement has aired during such a broadcast, specifying the total number of times and the total length of time (seconds or minutes), broken down by year and by month for each advertisement; (c) total cost to air each advertisement, broken down by year and by month; (d) criteria used to select each of the advertisement placements; (e) media outlet used to air each advertisement, broken down by year and by month; and (f) the total amount spent per outlet, broken down by year and by month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 585--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to government real property management, for each contract for the appraisal of real property since January 1, 2006: what are the (i) file numbers, (ii) dates, (iii) location or description of the property?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 586--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to government procurement: what are the details of all contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to Ministers since April 1, 2006, (a) providing for each such contract (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work; and (b) providing, in the case of a contract for speechwriting, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 587--
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:
With regard to bank notes: (a) how many requests to reproduce the image of Canadian bank notes have been received by the Bank of Canada since April 1, 2006; (b) how many such requests have been approved, and how many have been rejected; (c) for each such request, what was (i) the proposed reproduction and its purpose, (ii) the proposed placement or distribution of the material featuring the bank note image, (iii) the date of the approval, (iv) the name of the requester, where requested by a group, business, or organization, (iv) whether the request was approved or rejected?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 589--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to National Defence: (a) what were the projects, proposals, plans, or developments which were to have been the subject of the anticipated “announcements” concerning 5 Wing Goose Bay contemplated or referred to by the former Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in an interview with CBC Newfoundland and Labrador On Point which aired on or about May 26, 2012; (b) were those announcements ever made, and if so, what were they, and when were they made; (c) if those announcements were not made, (i) what progress has been made towards the projects, proposals, plans, or developments contemplated in (a), (ii) when will they be made public; and (d) what steps have been taken since January 2006 towards the establishment at the base of (i) a rapid reaction battalion, (ii) an unmanned aerial vehicle squadron, (iii) any other unit, facility, or function which was not already established at the base on January 1, 2006, specifying the nature of that proposed or anticipated unit, facility, or function?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 590--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With respect to the Scott et al. v. Attorney General of Canada legal action against the Government of Canada: (a) what is the total amount of money spent by all departments and agencies, broken down by department and agency, since October 30, 2012, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' class action lawsuit; and (b) what is the total amount of money all departments and agencies have spent to hire outside legal counsel, broken down by department and agency, for the same time period referred to in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 591--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the comments of Justice Minister Peter MacKay in the House on June 4, regarding a “compromise that occurred in the leaking of information around” the process of a Supreme Court appointment, and the statement of his spokesperson that “we are concerned about recent leaks from what was intended to be a confidential process, we are reviewing the process for future appointments” as quoted by the Toronto Star on June 3: (a) to what leaks do these comments refer; (b) when were these leaks discovered; (c) how were these leaks discovered; (d) how was the government informed of these leaks; (e) what measures were in place to prevent leaks; (f) how does the government define the “leaking of information”; (g) what meetings have occurred on the subject of these leaks, (i) on what dates, (ii) with whom present, (iii) with what goals, (iv) with what outcomes; (h) what materials, briefing notes, or other memos were created regarding these leaks and what are their dates of creation and file or reference numbers; (i) who developed the materials in (h); (j) do the “leaks” refer to an article by John Ivison of the National Post, dated May 1, regarding communications between the Chief Justice and Ministers of the Crown, or to material cited in that article; (k) do the “leaks” refer to an article by Laura Stone of Global News dated May 7 regarding communications between the Prime Minister’s Office and Marc Nadon suggesting Justice Nadon leave the Federal Court to rejoin the Quebec bar, or to material cited in that article; (l) do the “leaks” refer to an article by Sean Fine of the Globe and Mail dated May 23 regarding activities of the selection panel and names on government lists, or to material cited in that article; (m) if the answer to (j), (k), or (l) is negative, does the government dispute the veracity of the content referred to in the article referenced in the question; (n) what specific information has been leaked; (o) what is the extent and scope of the leak; (p) what are the consequences of the leak; (q) what meetings occurred regarding the articles referenced in (j), (k), and (l), (i) on what dates, (ii) who was present, (iii) what were the goals of the meeting, (iv) what was the outcome of the meeting; (r) what materials, briefing notes, or other memos were created regarding the articles in (j), (k), and (l) and what are their dates of creation and file or reference numbers; (s) from where did these leaks originate; (t) who had access to the information leaked; (u) what was done, if anything, to limit the dissemination of material once leaked; (v) were any news outlets contacted in an effort to limit the publication of leaked material; (w) were any journalists contacted to correct information in any story referencing a “leak”; (x) does the government’s conception of a leak include dissemination of information that is inaccurate; (y) what is the total number of leaks that occurred regarding the appointment process, and how was this number determined; (z) what steps has the government undertaken to investigate these leaks; (aa) have any meetings with the RCMP occurred regarding these leaks, (i) if yes, when and with whom, (ii) if not, why not; (bb) have any meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions occurred regarding these leaks, (i) if yes, when and with whom, (ii) if not, why not; (cc) have any meetings with the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs occurred regarding these leaks, (i) if yes, when and with whom, (ii) if not, why not; (dd) what steps is the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs undertaking to investigate these leaks; (ee) what steps is the Department of Justice taking to investigate these leaks; (ff) what steps is the Minister taking to investigate these leaks; (gg) when is it expected that any investigation will be concluded; (hh) what penalties might be imposed if the sources of the leaks are found; (ii) what cost is expected to be incurred relative to any investigation into these leaks; (jj) what additional measures are being taken to ensure that more leaks do not occur; (kk) what steps were taken in the Prime Minister’s Office to investigate these leaks; (ll) what steps were taken in the Privy Council Office to investigate these leaks; (mm) what meetings or communications transpired between the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister or his office regarding these leaks; (nn) who is responsible for these leaks; (oo) who is being investigated for these leaks; (pp) what suspects have been identified; (qq) has any motive been determined and if so, what are the motives and how was this determined; (rr) is the government itself investigating these leaks or will a third party be involved; (ss) what steps will be taken to ensure independence in any investigation of these leaks; (tt) have any wiretaps or other judicial orders been sought in relation to an investigation into these leaks; (uu) does the government consider information as being leaked if its dissemination occurs in a form where it is protected by privilege, such as on the floor of the House of Commons; (vv) who was informed of the leaks, on what date, and by what means; (ww) what was the impact of these leaks on the existing Supreme Court appointment process; (xx) what is expected to be the impact of these leaks on any future Supreme Court appointment process; (yy) how was the determination in (xx) made, by whom, with what policy objectives in mind, and with what expectations relative to future conduct by the government in identifying a nominee to the Supreme Court of Canada; (zz) who is in charge of investigating these leaks; (aaa) will Parliament be informed of the results of any investigation and if so, when; (bbb) if no investigations are occurring, why not; (ccc) if no investigations are occurring, is this compatible with the government’s policy objectives that include being “tough on crime”; (ddd) what measures will be in place for a future Supreme Court appointments process to prevent such leaks; (eee) what confidential materials related to the appointment process were created and distributed; and (fff) were all materials in (eee) returned, (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, what materials remain unreturned to the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 592--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
With regard to the Translation Bureau: (a) what was the total number of contracts awarded to outside suppliers for each year from 2006 to 2014; (b) with regard to the contracts (under $25,000) awarded to outside suppliers, for each year from 2006 to 2014, what are the (i) suppliers’ names, (ii) contract reference numbers, (iii) contract dates, (iv) descriptions of services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contract amounts, (vii) final contract amounts if different from the original contract amounts; (c) with regard to the total cost of contracts awarded by the Translation Bureau to outside suppliers for each year from 2006 to 2014, what are the (i) suppliers’ names, (ii) contract reference numbers, (iii) contract dates, (iv) descriptions of services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contract amounts, (vii) final contract amounts if different from the original contract amounts; (d) what percentage of all work performed by the Translation Bureau was assigned to outside suppliers for each year from 2006 to 2014; (e) what was the Translation Bureau’s total business volume (in dollars) for each year from 2006 to 2014; (f) what percentage of documents was translated from French to English by the Translation Bureau for each year between 2006 and 2014; (g) what percentage of documents was translated from French to English by outside suppliers contracted by the Translation Bureau for each year between 2006 and 2014; (h) with regard to the elimination of positions within the Translation Bureau, for each year from 2006 to 2014, (i) how many full-time positions were eliminated, (ii) how many part-time positions were eliminated, (iii) which positions, (iv) in which Bureau departments, (v) who was consulted, (vi) what impact has this had on delivery deadlines for translation requests; and (i) regarding the hiring of employees within the Translation Bureau, (i) how many new positions were created within the Translation Bureau for each year from 2006 to 2014, (ii) position titles, (iii) how many full-time positions (iv) how many part-time positions, (v) in which departments were the new positions created?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 593--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
With regard to the former Yekau Lake Practice Bombing Range: what are the dates, titles and file numbers of all reports, memoranda, dockets, dossiers or other records since January 1, 2006, held by any department or agency concerning the Range or environmental remediation of the site?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 594--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
With regard to government communications, for each announcement made by a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary in the National Capital Region in a location other than the parliamentary precinct or the National Press Theatre: what was the (a) date, (b) location, (c) purpose or subject matter, (d) name and portfolio of the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary; and (e) what were the amounts and details of all expenses related to making each such announcement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 595--
Mr. Glenn Thibeault:
With regard to uncollected fines and administrative monetary penalties: broken down by fiscal year and offence, since 2005-2006, up to and including the current fiscal year, (a) what is the total amount collected by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada under the National Fine Recovery Program; and (b) what is the total amount of unpaid fines that has yet to be collected by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada under the National Fine Recovery Program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 596--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec since January 1, 2006: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contacts’ reference numbers, (iii) dates of contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts’ values, (vii) final contracts’ values if different from the original contracts’ values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 597--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the government’s Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) Summit held in Toronto, May 28-30 2014: (a) who within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development was responsible for the organization of the MNCH Summit; (b) what was the initial budget of the event and (i) did the Summit go over budget, (ii) if so, what were the cost overruns, (iii) were there unforeseen expenses; (c) what was the total cost of the Summit; (d) what was the total cost for the venue rental (Fairmont Royal York); (e) how many bedrooms in the Fairmont Royal York were paid for by the government and at what cost; (f) how many names were on the final guest list and what were the names; (g) how many government officials and employees attended the Summit and what are their names; (h) how many guests who are not employees of the government had their stay at the Fairmont Royal York paid for by the government and what are their names; (i) did the government pay for the travel expenses of international visitors; (j) how was the Fairmont Royal York chosen as a venue for the Summit, (i) on what date was the hotel first contacted with regard to the Summit, (ii) on what date was the contract with the hotel signed, (iii) did the Summit organizers contact venues other than the Fairmont Royal York and, if so, how many; (k) what was the total cost for security; (l) what was the total cost of meals and hospitality; and (m) was the Summit paid for by funds dedicated to the Muskoka Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 598--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to Canada’s funding and participation within the United Nations (UN) and its agencies: for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014, (a) how much funding did the government allocate for each UN agency, related specialized agency, fund and program; (b) for each UN body, specialized institution, fund and program, which ones (i) saw their funding reduced, (ii) saw their funding fully cut, (iii) saw their funding increased, or (iv) received new funding from the government; (c) what is the annual evolution of Canada’s overall multilateral funding for all UN agencies, funds and programs compared to its bilateral funding; (d) what have been Canada’s priorities at the UN from 2006-2014; (e) what have been Canada’s priority issues since 2006; (f) what resources and projects were assigned to each priority issue and what were the results; (g) how has Canada voted for each UN General Assembly resolution since 2006; (h) how did Canada vote at the UN’s other bodies; (i) does the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development provide Canada with directives in writing on how to vote within the UN’s various bodies; (j) what department within DFATD, and previously within DFAIT, is responsible for preparing such documents for the votes; (k) what departments and members of the Prime Minister’s Office are responsible for or are involved in the (i) choices, (ii) directions, (iii) monitoring involving Canada’s financial contributions to the UN, and what are the roles of those working within these Canadian bodies; (l) which countries benefit from Canadian funding within the UN; (m) what partners, non-governmental organizations and others are involved in implementing programs funded by Canada at the UN; (n) how has Canada contributed, both financially and in its participation to the issue of reforming the UN since 2006; (o) why was Canada defeated during the election for non-permanent membership on the Security Council; and (p) did DFAIT prepare the Government of Canada’s policy papers for Canada’s election to a seat on the Security Council in 2010?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 599--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to construction-related tenders, requests for proposals, contracts, and related activities on all military bases, assets, and facilities related to 9 Wing Gander since 2006: what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and all entities, departments, companies, contractors, or individuals, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved, (ix) military base, asset, or facility, (x) type of activity or contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 600--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to Correctional Service Canada and the closure of Kingston Penitentiary (KP) and the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC): (a) as of April 19, 2012, what was the stated plan for the relocation of inmates; (b) as of September 30, 2013, what was the stated plan for the relocation of inmates; (c) as of October 1, 2013, where were the inmates residing; (d) as of April 1, 2014, where were the inmates residing; (e) as of June 1, 2014, where were the inmates residing; (f) as of June 1, 2014, what was the stated plan for the relocation of inmates; (g) what modifications to Collins Bay Institution were procured to address the increased inmate population resulting from the temporary relocation of inmates, (i) on what dates were these modifications authorized, (ii) on whose authority, (iii) what contracts were signed relating to these modifications, (iv) what is the dollar value of each of the contracts in (iii), (v) what is the status of each of the contracts listed in (iii), (vi) what will the total cost be for temporarily housing inmates at Collins Bay Institution; (h) what modifications to Bath Institution were procured to address the increased inmate population, (i) on what dates were these modifications authorized, (ii) on whose authority, (iii) what contracts were signed relating to these modifications, (iv) what is the dollar value of each of the contracts in (iii), (v) what is the status of each of the contracts listed in (iii), (vi) what will the total cost be for modifications required to accommodate the increased inmate population for KP and RTC; and (i) what modifications to Millhaven Institution were procured to address the increased inmate population, (i) on what dates were these modifications authorized, (ii) on whose authority, (iii) what contracts were signed relating to these modifications, (iv) what is the dollar value of each of the contracts in (iii), (v) what is the status of each of the contracts listed in (iii), (vi) what will the total cost be for modifications required to accommodate the increased inmate population for KP and RTC?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 601--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to Canada’s climate-change policy: (a) will the government match the United States’ recently-announced plan to reduce 17 percent of its carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 by reducing carbon pollution from the nation’s coal fired power plants, their largest emitter, by 30%; (b) if the government intends to match these efforts against Canada’s largest emitter, the oil and gas sector, what departments or agencies will be involved in this preparation; (c) are there existing plans in place to reduce carbon emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2020; (d) if so, what are the details of these plans; (e) how and when will these plans or policies be communicated to the Canadian public; and (f) when, where and how many times has the Minister of the Environment or her staff met with representatives of the oil and gas industry to negotiate greenhouse gas emission reductions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 602--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) agenda, (iv) list of attendees or participants by name and title, (v) file or reference number, for minutes of all meetings of any group or committee involved in the planning or programming of 2014 Canada Day events in Ottawa?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 603--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to the portions of the anti-spam legislation that come into force on July 1, 2014: (a) how many inquiries has the government received from companies about the new law; (b) what outreach activities has the government undertaken to help companies understand their obligations under the new act; and (c) how much money has the government spent to inform Canadians or businesses about the new law?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 604--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to National Parks: what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all reports, memoranda, dockets, dossiers, or other records, since January 1, 2006, held by any department or agency, concerning the proposed Never Forgotten National Memorial at Green Cove, Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 605--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the National Capital Commission (NCC): (a) what were the costs and details of expenditures related to the relocation of the NCC's Capital Infocentre, located at 90 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario, to the World Exchange Plaza, located at 45 O'Connor Street, Ottawa, Ontario, in 2011; and (b) what are the costs and details of expenditures, or the anticipated costs and details of expenditures, related to the anticipated relocation of the Infocentre from the World Exchange Plaza to its former location at 90 Wellington Street?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 606--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the operations of Marine Atlantic Incorporated and the operation of vessels between the ports of Port aux Basques and Argentia, Newfoundland and Labrador and North Sydney, Nova Scotia: for the time period of fiscal years 2009-2010 through to 2013-2014, (a) how may trips were cancelled in each of these years including the (i) date, (ii) time of scheduled crossing, (iii) scheduled port of departure and arrival, (iv) reason for cancellation; (b) for each crossing during this period of time, what was the volume of traffic onboard compared to the capacity of the vessel for commercial and non-commercial traffic; and (c) what were all the various advertised rates for each of these years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 610--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and more specifically all fish quota allocations in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) fishing areas 2J3KL, 3MNO, 3PS, 3PN and 4R for the time period 2004-2014: (a) what quotas in each of these NAFO areas were assigned for harvesting by companies or businesses, including the company or business name and address, quota amount, species, applicable NAFO area, year and any specific conditions of license; and (b) of the quota allocations identified in (a), how many of the companies or businesses that were granted an initial quota were permitted to have another company or fisher harvest (sublease) the initially assigned quota, including the name and address of this assigned company or fisher, quota amount assigned, species, applicable NAFO area and any specific conditions attached to the permission granted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 611--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to any travel claim or any other expense claim submitted by any Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or Minister of State, or any ministerial staff: since 2006 and broken down by department or agency, what is (i) the amount of each claim rejected, (ii) the reason why the claim was rejected, (iii) the reason why the claim was amended?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 612--
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan:
With regard to the proposed Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP): (a) what policies, timelines, actions and monitoring does the draft RNUP legislation and strategic plan specify to protect and restore native habitat in the park to (i) restore the “main ecological corridor” outlined in the Greenbelt Plan (2005), the Rouge North Management Plan (section 4.1.1.2), the Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan (2007), the Rouge Park Natural Heritage Action Plan (2008), and the Rouge River Watershed Strategy (2007), (ii) protect and improve water quality and migratory fish habitat within the Little Rouge River, part of the Toronto Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement “Area of Concern”, (iii) surpass the minimum 30% forest cover and 10% wetland per watershed recommended in the report “How Much Habitat is Enough” for “viable wildlife populations”, (iv) increase the sequestering of precipitation and carbon dioxide to mitigate climatic extremes and reduce the risk to properties and infra-structure from flooding and erosion, (v) improve habitat size, quality and connectivity, (vi) combat adverse edge effects and invasive species, (vii) improve the park's ecological health, resilience and integrity, (viii) increase the proportion of the park accessible to nature and people; (b) what policies, actions and timelines does the draft RNUP legislation and strategic plan outline to respect, strengthen and implement existing federal, provincial and municipal environmental policies, laws and plans, including the (i) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and Toronto “AOC” Remedial Action Plan, (ii) Rouge River Watershed Strategy (2007), (iii) Canada's Species at Risk Act and associated commitments, (iv) Canadian National Parks Act and Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, v) Species at Risk Act and Migratory Birds Act, (vi) Fisheries Act and draft Fisheries Management Plan for Rouge River (2011), (vii) Navigable Waters Protection Act, (viii) Rouge Park Management Plan (1994), (ix) Rouge North Management Plan (2001), (x) Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002), (xi) Greenbelt Plan (2005), (xii) Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan (2007), (xiii) Rouge Park Natural Heritage Action Plan (2008); (c) how much of the land within the 57 km2 RNUP Study Area is (i) native forest habitat, (ii) wetland habitat, (iii) leased for cash cropping of corn or soy beans, (iv) leased for agricultural uses other than cash cropping, (v) leased for private residences, (vi) within public utility corridors, (vii) not leased, (viii) accessible to the public; (d) what area (in hectares) and percentage of the proposed RNUP Study Area is currently leased to private individuals or corporations; (e) how many individuals currently lease land within the RNUP study area; (f) how many land parcels in the RNUP study area are currently leased to (i) farmers who once owned the subject land parcel but were expropriated in the 1970s, (ii) provincial government employees or their close family members, (iii) federal government employees or their close family members, (iv) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) employees or their close family members, (v) municipal government employees or their close family members, (vi) non farmers, (vii) lease holders who do not live in the RNUP area; (g) for the most recent year available, what are all the leased properties in the RNUP study area, broken down by (i) geographic location and approximate boundaries of the leased property marked on a map, (ii) land area (hectares) associated with the lease, (iii) buildings associated with the lease (for example 1 house, 900 ft2, 1 barn 1500 ft2, (iv) name of leaseholder and name of tenant(s), (v) annual lease rate and length of lease, (vi) length of time the current leaseholder has leased the property, (vii) true annual public cost of property upkeep and lease administration, (viii) public investment in the property needed to address modern building code, fire, safety and energy conservation standards; (h) what is the current TRCA and Transport Canada process for awarding and renewing land leases in the RNUP study area and what are any proposed changes to improve competition, public transparency, fairness and fair market return on these public land leases; (i) what percentage of the corn grown on leased Rouge Park lands in 2013 was grown for ethanol production; (j) what are the planned staffing expenses and other RNUP expenditures by Parks Canada in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016; and (k) what is the planned utilization of the funding from the Waterfront Regeneration Trust in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 by Parks Canada or the TRCA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 613--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to Bill C-22, with particular emphasis on the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act (NLCA): (a) in developing this legislation, what was the government`s policy for consulting with non-industry stakeholders and civil society groups, (i) which non-industry stakeholders and civil society groups did the government consult with, (ii) which aspects of the legislation were they consulted on, (iii) what were the exact dates on which these consultations took place; (b) in developing the NLCA, did the Department of Natural Resources ask licensees of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission who are nuclear power generating station operators who supply electricity to public electricity grids whether adopting unlimited liability for nuclear operators, without increasing financial security, would increase electricity prices, and if so, (i) what were the responses of the licensees, (ii) what evidence does the government have to support the assertion that removing the cap on operator liability, without raising financial security, would increase electricity prices; (c) does the Department of Natural Resources know how much self-insurance licensees carry for on-site damage and, if so, what amount is insured by the licensees for that on-site damage; (d) what analysis or assessment has the government performed to determine whether signing and ratifying the Convention on Supplementary Convention (CSC) and passing this legislation would result in an increase in public safety; (e) has the government assessed whether the NLCA will have a negative or positive impact on the achievement of Canada’s sustainable development goals and, if so, what were the results of this assessment; (f) has the Department of Natural Resources asked industry whether nuclear suppliers would accept exposure to liability and, if so, (i) what were the responses provided, (ii) what were the exact dates on which these consultations took place; (g) is it necessary to link operator liability caps to the capacity of insurance providers to provide insurance and, if so, (i) why is this so, (ii) why was this not a limiting factor in developing Part 1 of Bill C-22; (h) what is the government's analysis of what level of costs would be an inordinate “burden” on the nuclear industry for insurance; (i) why did the government not use the same definition of ‘reasonable costs’ for insurance for the nuclear industry and the offshore oil and gas industry, (i) what were the respective definitions used for Parts 1 and 2 of Bill C-22, (ii) how are they different, (iii) what was the policy rationale for using different definitions; and (j) after the passage of the NLCA, how would the CSC be ratified, (i) would parliamentary debate be required before the convention could be ratified, (ii) does the government agree that the ratification of the convention should be reviewed by an all-party committee, (iii) why has the government not ratified any other international nuclear liability conventions since the 1960s, (iv) can the government file reservations or exemptions regarding any requirements of the CSC, v) have any other signatories to the CSC filed any such reservations or exemptions, and if so, which signatories have done so and what are the specifics of the reservations and exemptions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 614--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine: (a) how does the government define this doctrine; (b) when does this doctrine apply; (c) is this doctrine a part of Canadian foreign policy and, if so, how; (d) who determines when R2P is appropriate and how is this determination made; (e) when was the doctrine most recently mentioned by the Prime Minister in a public speech and in what context; (f) when was the doctrine most recently mentioned by the Prime Minister in a public document and in what context; (g) when was the doctrine most recently mentioned by a minister other than the Prime Minister in a public speech and in what context; (h) when was the doctrine most recently mentioned by a minister other than the Prime Minister in a public document and in what context; (i) for (e), (f), (g), (h), what was the date of the document or speech and where can the full text be accessed; (j) in what discussions has the Prime Minister raised R2P in the last two years, broken down by date and parties present; (k) in what discussions has the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised R2P in the last two years, broken down by date and parties present; (l) in what discussions has a minister other than the Minister of Foreign Affairs or Prime Minister raised R2P in the last two years, broken down by date and parties present; (m) for (j), (k) and (l), (i) when did the meetings occur, (ii) who was present, (iii) what was the context, (iv) what notes or minutes of the meeting exist and what is their file or control number, (v) why was R2P mentioned, (vi) what was said; (n) in what meetings attended by the Prime Minister since 2010 has R2P been on the agenda; (o) in what meetings attended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2010 has R2P been on the agenda; (p) in what meetings attended by a minister other than the Prime Minister or Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2010 was R2P on the agenda; (q) were any meetings where R2P was on the agenda declined by the Prime Minister since 2010 and, if so, why was the meeting declined; (r) were any meetings where R2P was on the agenda declined by the Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2010 and, if so, why was the meeting declined; (s) were any meetings where R2P was on the agenda declined by a Minister other than the Minister of Foreign Affairs or Prime Minister 2010 and, if so, why was the meeting declined; (t) does the government view R2P as part of domestic policy and, if so, how; (u) in what ways has R2P found expression in Canadian policy; (v) what government decisions have been made that implement R2P; (w) what directives or memos have been created regarding R2P and what are their access or control numbers, sorted by agency creating the document; (x) what goals has the government identified with respect to R2P and how are these goals being implemented and assessed; (y) what meetings involving the government have taken place in the last five years regarding R2P, (i) who was present, (ii) what was the agenda, (iii) what documents were prepared for the meeting or created in relation to it and what are their file or control numbers; (z) to what conferences regarding R2P have government employees attended, broken down by date and title; (aa) broken down by date, to what conferences regarding R2P has the government declined to send representation and what was the reason the conference was declined; (bb) what steps are being taken to implement R2P and who is taking these steps; (cc) in what ways can the steps in (bb) be verified; (dd) how is Parliament kept abreast of developments regarding R2P; (ee) what discussions has the government had regarding how to ‘domesticate’ R2P and what was the (i) venue, (ii) date, (iii) outcomes, (iv) attendee list; (ff) what steps has the government taken to appoint a senior-level government official to serve as a National R2P Focal Point for atrocity prevention; (gg) by when will Canada have a senior-level government official to serve as a National R2P Focal Point for atrocity prevention; (hh) what policy objectives have been identified with respect to having to appoint a senior-level government official to serving a National R2P Focal Point for atrocity prevention; (ii) what studies have been undertaken by the government with respect to R2P since 2006, broken down by date of study and indicating (i) title, (ii) authors, (iv) results, (v) recommendations, (vi) where and how it may be accessed; (jj) what discussions regarding R2P has Canada had with the United Kingdom and the United States, (i) when did any discussions take place, (ii) what were any outcomes, (iii) what were the resulting recommendations, (iv) was a report produced and, if so, how can it be obtained; (kk) does the government have a comprehensive national strategy to mainstream the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities and, if so, how can it be accessed; (ll) what government strategies, memos and documents have been prepared regarding the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities, broken down by date, and what are their file or control numbers; (mm) what steps is the government taking to develop a comprehensive national strategy to mainstream the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities; (nn) who is responsible for the development of a national strategy to mainstream the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities; (oo) has the government undertaken studies to examine the potential use of mobile technology to produce increasingly precise and accurate warnings for potential victims of mass atrocities to adequately prepare or move to safety and, if so, (i) what are the studies’ titles, (ii) dates, (iii) results, (iv) recommendations; (pp) what meetings, briefings, or memos have occurred or been produced regarding the potential use of mobile technology to produce increasingly precise and accurate warnings for potential victims of mass atrocities; (qq) what discussions has Canada had with the United Nations (UN) regarding R2P; (rr) what meetings and discussions has Canada had with the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations regarding R2P, (i) when did the meetings occur, (ii) who was present, (iii) what was the topic; (ss) what meetings and discussions has Canada had with the UN’s Department of Political Affairs regarding R2P, (i) when did the meetings occur, (ii) who was present, (iii) what was the topic; (tt) what meetings and discussions has Canada had with the Secretary-General’s Special Advisor on Genocide Prevention regarding R2P, (i) when did the meetings occur (ii) who was present, (iii) what was the topic; (uu) what were the outcomes of the meetings in (qq), (rr), (ss) and (tt), broken down by meeting; (vv) were any reports produced with respect to the meetings or discussions in (qq), (rr), (ss), (tt) and, if so, (i) how can they be accessed, (ii) what are their file or control numbers; (ww) what steps has Canada made with respect to creating a standing, rapid-reaction UN force, (i) when did any discussions take place, (ii) with whom did any discussions take place, (iii) what were any outcomes, (iv) was a report produced and, if so, how can it be accessed; (xx) what discussions has Canada had with respect to limitations on the use of veto powers when situations meet R2P criteria and, if so, (iii) what was the venue, date, outcomes and, if not, (iv) why not; (yy) what analysis or strategy meetings and documents have been prepared regarding (xx) and what are their file or control numbers; (zz) what discussions has Canada had with other governments, UN agencies and departments with respect to early warning and prevention, broken down by date an indicating (i) venue, (ii) topic, (iii) persons present, (iv) outcomes, (iv) reports, memos, or other materials relative to the meeting or discussion and their file or control numbers; (aaa) what budget exists for R2P implementation and how has this been determined; (bbb) what memos, directives, or documents exist regarding the phrase “Responsibility to Protect” and what are their file or control numbers; (ccc) have government employees been discouraged from or otherwise restricted in their use of the phrase “Responsibility to Protect”; and (ddd) have any government documents been edited to remove the phrase “Responsibility to Protect” and, if so, (i) what was the document, (ii) when did the edit occur, (iii) why was the change made?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 618--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to Social Security Tribunal (SST) and the four administrative tribunals it replaced, the Employment Insurance Board of Referees, the Employment Insurance Umpires, the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Review Tribunals, and the Pension Appeals Board: (a) what is the number and percentage of total appeals that were made to each prior tribunal for fiscal years 2004-2005 to 2012-2013, broken down by (i) province, (ii) region, (iii) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (iv) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) appeals withdrawn before hearing by the claimant and the Department, (vi) appeals withdrawn at hearing by the claimant and the Department, (vii) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (viii) average number of days it took to schedule a hearing after receipt of appeal notice, (ix) when is an appeal file considered in backlog, (x) how many files were in backlog at the end of each fiscal year; (b) what is the number and percentage of total appeals concerning Employment Insurance that were made to the SST General Division for fiscal year 2012-2013 and year to date, broken down by (i) province, (ii) region, (iii) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (iv) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) appeals withdrawn before hearing by the claimant and by the government, (vi) appeals withdrawn at hearing by the claimant and by the Department, (vii) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (viii) appeals summarily dismissed by the SST General Division because it felt there was no reasonable chance of success, (ix) in how many cases referred in (b)(viii) did the claimant not submit additional information after being told that his or her case might be summarily dismissed, (x) how many initial requests by the claimant or the government to adjourn or postpone the hearing were received pursuant to section 11 of the SST Regulations, and how many were granted and denied, (xi) when is an appeal file considered in backlog, (xii) how many files were in backlog at the end of each month and fiscal year, (xiii) what are the reasons for any backlog, (xiv) what is being done about any backlog, (xv) what is the oldest appeal in backlog; (c) what is the number and percentage of total appeals concerning Old Age Security that were made to the SST General Division for fiscal 2012-2013 and year to date, broken down by (i) province, (ii) region, (iii) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (iv) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) appeals withdrawn before hearing by the claimant and by the department, (vi) appeals withdrawn at hearing by the claimant and by the department, (vii) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (viii) appeals summarily dismissed because the SST Member felt there was no reasonable chance of success, (ix) in how many cases referred in (b)(viii) did the claimant not submit additional information after being told that his or her case might be summarily dismissed, (x) how many initial requests by the claimant or the government to adjourn or postpone the hearing were received pursuant to section 11 of the SST Regulations, and how many were granted and denied, (xi) when is an appeal file considered in backlog, (xii) how many files were in backlog at the end of each month and fiscal year, (xiii) what are the reasons for any backlog, (xiv) what is being done about any backlog, (xv) what is the oldest appeal in backlog; (d) what is the number and percentage of total appeals concerning the Canada Pension Plan that were made to the SST General Division for fiscal 2012-2013 and year to date, broken down by (i) province, (ii) region, (iii) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (iv) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) appeals withdrawn before hearing by the claimant and by the Department, (vi) appeals withdrawn at hearing by the claimant and by the Department, (vii) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (viii) appeals summarily dismissed because the SST Member felt there was no reasonable chance of success, (ix) in how many cases referred in (b)(viii) did the claimant not submit additional information after being told that his or her case might be summarily dismissed, (x) how many initial requests by the claimant or the government to adjourn or postpone the hearing were received pursuant to section 11 of the SST Regulations, and how many were granted and denied, (xi) when is an appeal file considered in backlog, (xii) how many files were in backlog at the end of each month and fiscal year, (xiii) what are the reasons for any backlog, (xiv) what is being done about any backlog, (xv) what is the oldest appeal in backlog; (e) what is the number and percentage of total appeals concerning Employment Insurance that were made to the SST Appeals Division for fiscal 2012-2013 and year to date, broken down by (i) province, (ii) region, (iii) appeals resulting in an overturn of the SST General Division’s decision, (iv) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the SST General Division’s decision, (v) how many appeals that were summarily dismissed by the SST General Division were appealed to the SST Appeal Division, (vi) how many judicial reviews of a decision rendered by the SST Appeal Division were brought before the Federal Court of Appeal, (vii) how many leave to appeal applications were granted and denied by the SST Appeal Division, (viii) how many of the denials in (vii) were appealed before the Federal Court; (f) what is the number and percentage of total appeals concerning Old Age Security that were made to the SST Appeals Division for fiscal 2012-2013 and year to date, broken down by (i) province, (ii) region, (iii) appeals resulting in an overturn of the SST General Division’s decision, (iv) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the SST General Division’s decision, (v) how many appeals that were summarily dismissed by the SST General Division were appealed to the SST Appeal Division, (vi) how many judicial reviews of a decision rendered by the SST Appeal Division were brought before the Federal Court of Appeal, (vii) how many leave to appeal applications were granted and denied by the SST Appeal Division, (viii) how many of the denials in (vii) were appealed before the Federal Court; (g) what is the number and percentage of total appeals concerning Canada Pension Plan that were made to the SST Appeals Division for fiscal 2012-2013 and year to date, broken down by (i) province, (ii) region, (iii) appeals resulting in an overturn of the SST General Division’s decision, (iv) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the SST General Division’s decision, (v) how many appeals that were summarily dismissed by the SST General Division were appealed to the SST Appeal Division, (vi) how many judicial reviews of a decision rendered by the SST Appeal Division were brought before the Federal Court of Appeal, (vii) how many leave to appeal applications were granted and denied by the SST Appeal Division, (viii) how many of the denials in (vii) were appealed before the Federal Court; (h) what is the set standard to hold a hearing once an appeal is filed by the claimant for the (i) prior tribunals, (ii) SST General Division, (iii) SST Appeals Division; (i) what are the results in achieving the standard in (h); (j) what is the average number of days to schedule a hearing from receipt of the appeal notice claimant for the (i) prior tribunals, (ii) SST General Division; (k) what is the annual cost of the prior tribunals for fiscal 2004-2005 to 2012-2013 broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) cost by most detailed cost category available; (l) what is the annual cost of SST for 2013-2014 and year to date broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) cost by most detailed cost category available, including division; (m) what is the number of prior tribunal members as of March 31 of each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2012-2013; (n) what is the expected and realized annual cost savings created by the SST in 2013-2014 and what is the reason for any discrepancy; (o) what is the expected and realized efficiency savings, created by the SST in 2013-2014 and what is the reason for any discrepancy; (p) what is the anticipated and actual cases convened by the SST by way of (i) written questions and answers, (ii) teleconference, (iii) video conference, (iv) personal appearance in 2013-2014 and, if there is any discrepancy, why; (q) what is the anticipated and actual percentage of total cases convened by the SST by way of (i) written questions and answers, (ii) teleconference, (iii) video conference, (iv) personal appearance in 2013-2014 and, if there is any discrepancy, why; (r) if there were no expectations for (p) and (q), why not, and why did the government develop the new proposed practice of written questions and answers, teleconference and video conference as opposed to in person hearings; (s) how many video-conferencing centres were (i) planned to be and (ii) were operational to deal with the expected caseload for the first year of the SST and the supporting rationale for the number; (t) if there was no rationale for (s) why wasn’t there one; (u) where were the prior tribunals (i) centre locations, (ii) regions served; (v) are there are currently SST video conferencing centres available to those same locations in (u) and if not, why not; (w) what were strategic and operational objectives set for the SST’s first year, (i) were they met, (ii) if not, why not, (iii) what impact is there on client service and cost to taxpayers versus the prior tribunals; (x) what were the specific required types of training for SST members in 2013-2014 broken down by (i) General Division, (ii) Appeals Division if applicable; (y) did all SST members receive the required training to date, and if not, why not; (z) what was the expected and actual amount of training (in hours, days or whatever the standard training units are) and the cost in 2013-2014 for (i) each SST member, (ii) all members; (aa) how many SST members were hired and actively performing their duties at the end of each month in 2013-2014 and year to date, broken down by division SST in general; (bb) how many SST members have resigned or been fired to date and why; (cc) what negative feedback or complaints has the SST received or government received about the SST from (i) its members, (ii) stakeholders, claimants and others regarding the operation and function of the SST since it began operating and, if so, what are the comments or the reference numbers of the internal files that contain that information; (dd) was any audit, evaluation, or review document prepared or conducted on the SST since it became operational and, if so, what was the date and the internal file or reference number associated with each; (ee) what is the expected ongoing cost and efficiency savings and the supporting rationale; (ff) if the government did not set specific targets or expectations referenced in (ee), why; and (gg) was any study or report done by the government to justify the creation of the SST and, if so, what are the date completed and any internal file or reference numbers associated with them?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 619--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to regulations published in the Canada Gazette since the introduction of the “One-for-One” rule, broken down by year: (a) how many regulations have been published; (b) for how many did the rule not apply; (c) how many were carved out from the rule; and (d) how many resulted in an equivalent reduction in regulations due to the rule?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 620--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to all aspects of the seal industry: what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings, departmental correspondence or other government records since 2006, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved, (ix) country or regions involved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 621--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the Directory of Federal Real Property administered by the Real Property and Materiel Policy Directorate of the Treasury Board Secretariat: for all properties located in Kingston and the Islands, (a) broken down by custodian and property title, what is the value of these properties on the financial records of the department, agency or Crown corporation responsible; (b) broken down by custodian and property title, how many properties have currently been declared surplus, and how did these properties appear on the financial records of the department, agency or Crown corporation responsible (i) prior to having been declared surplus, (ii) after having been declared surplus; (c) broken down by custodian, property title and sale price, how many properties have been sold prior to having been declared surplus since 2006, and what was the value according to the financial records of the department, agency or Crown corporation responsible (i) prior to the sale, (ii) for each year from 2006 to 2014; (d) broken down by custodian, property title and sale price, how many properties have been sold after being declared surplus since 2006, and what was the value according to the financial records of the department, agency or Crown corporation responsible (i) prior to the sale, (ii) for each year from 2006 to 2014; and (e) broken down by custodian, property title and sale price, how many properties have been sold without having been declared surplus since 2006, and what was the value according to the financial records of the department, agency or Crown corporation responsible (i) prior to the sale, (ii) for each year from 2006 to 2014?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 622--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): since January 1, 2012, has the Prime Minister’s Office, The Privy Council Office, or the Minister of Public Safety’s Office issued directives or suggestions to (i) Senators or their offices, (ii) Members of Parliament or their offices, (iii) the Correctional Service of Canada or its members, (iv) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or its members, (v) the Canada Border Service Agency or its members, in order to forbid or discourage them from (a) testifying at CRTC hearings; and (b) providing letters of support to the CRTC on applications or processes and, if so, what are the (i) names of the individuals or offices that issued such a directive or suggestion, (ii) dates when the directives or suggestions were issued, (iii) individuals or departments to whom the directives or suggestions were issued, (iv) details as to the content of the directives or suggestions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 624--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to high-speed Internet access in rural and Northern Canada: (a) concerning the funds announced in Digital Canada 150 in order to extend and enhance high-speed Internet services in rural and Northern areas, (i) has Howe Island, Ontario, been identified as an area of particular need or concern, (ii) specific to Howe Island, what measures are being undertaken to ensure that high-speed Internet services are available, (iii) how much money is earmarked for improving broadband services on Howe Island, (iv) how much money is earmarked for improving broadband services in the riding of Kingston and the Islands, (v) how much money is earmarked for improving broadband services in the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, (vi) how much money is earmarked for improving broadband services in the riding of Leeds—Grenville, (vii) how much money is earmarked for improving broadband services in the riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, (viii) how much money has been spent improving broadband services on Howe Island, (ix) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Kingston and the Islands, (x) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, (xi) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Leeds—Grenville, (xii) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, (xiii) how much money is projected to be spent improving broadband services on Howe Island, (xiv) how much money is projected to be spent improving broadband services in the riding of Kingston and the Islands, (xv) how much money is projected to be spent improving broadband services in the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, (xvi) how much money is projected to be spent improving broadband services in the riding of Leeds—Grenville, (xvii) how much money is projected to be spent improving broadband services in the riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, (xviii) what is the process by which these funds were or are to be allocated, (1) when was this process determined, (2) which individuals were consulted, (3) which organizations were consulted, (4) on what date was the process finalized, (5) on whose authority, (xix) what is the expected date for these funds to be made available, (xx) what is the expected date for these funds to be made available on Howe Island, (xxi) what is the projected timeline for the project on Howe Island, (xxii) what is the projected timeline for the project as a whole, (xxiii) what is the specific scope of the project, (xxiv) were bids solicited, (1) if yes, how was this process determined, (2) when was this process determined, (3) which individuals were consulted, (4) which organizations were consulted, (5) on what date was the process finalized, (6) on whose authority, (xxv) are bids expected to be solicited, (5) if yes, how was this process determined, (2) when was this process determined, (3) which individuals were consulted, (4) which organizations were consulted, (5) on what date was the process finalized, (6) on whose authority, (xxvi) how are the funds advertised, (xxvii) what is the expected impact of the project, (xxviii) what is the expected impact of the project on Howe Island specifically, (xxix) if no money is allocated to Howe Island, what steps should Howe Island residents take under the program to obtain high-speed Internet services; (b) with regard to the funds announced in Economic Action Plan 2014 in order to extend and enhance high-speed Internet services in rural and Northern areas, (i) has Howe Island, Ontario, been identified as an area of particular need or concern, (ii) specific to Howe Island, what measures are being undertaken to ensure that high-speed Internet services are available, (iii) how much money is earmarked for improving broadband services on Howe Island, (iv) how much money is earmarked for improving broadband services in the riding of Kingston and the Islands, (v) how much money is earmarked for improving broadband services in the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, (vi) how much money is earmarked for improving broadband services in the riding of Leeds—Grenville, (vii) how much money is earmarked for improving broadband services in the riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, (viii) how much money has been spent improving broadband services on Howe Island, (ix) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Kingston and the Islands, (x) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, (xi) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Leeds—Grenville, (xii) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, (xiii) how much money is projected to be spent improving broadband services on Howe Island, (xiv) how much money is projected to be spent improving broadband services in the riding of Kingston and the Islands, (xv) how much money is projected to be spent improving broadband services in the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, (xvi) how much money is projected to be spent improving broadband services in the riding of Leeds—Grenville, (xvii) how much money is projected to be spent improving broadband services in the riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, (xviii) what is the process by which these funds were or are to be allocated, (1) when was this process determined, (2) which individuals were consulted, (3) which organizations were consulted, (4) on what date was the process finalized, (5) on whose authority, (xix) what is the expected date for these funds to be made available, (xx) what is the expected date for these funds to be made available on Howe Island, (xxi) what is the projected timeline for the project on Howe Island, (xxii) what is the projected timeline for the project as a whole, (xxiii) what is the specific scope of the project, (xxiv) were bids solicited, (1) if yes, how was this process determined, (2) when was this process determined, (3) which individuals were consulted, (4) which organizations were consulted, (5) on what date was the process finalized, (6) on whose authority, (xxv) are bids expected to be solicited, (1) if yes, how was this process determined, (2) when was this process determined, (3) which individuals were consulted, (4) which organizations were consulted, (5) on what date was the process finalized, (6) on whose authority,(xxvi) how are the funds advertised, (xxvii) what is the expected impact of the project, (xxviii) what is the expected impact of the project on Howe Island specifically; and (c) with regard to the funds from the recently completed Broadband Canada program, (i) was Howe Island, Ontario, identified as an area of particular need or concern, (ii) specific to Howe Island, what measures were undertaken to ensure that high-speed Internet services are available, (iii) how much money has been spent improving broadband services on Howe Island, (iv) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Kingston and the Islands, (v) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, (vi) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Leeds—Grenville, (vii) how much money has been spent improving broadband services in the riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, (viii) what was the process by which these funds were or are to be allocated, (1) when was this process determined, (2) which individuals were consulted, (3) which organizations were consulted, (4) on what date was the process finalized, (5) on whose authority, (ix) what was the specific scope of the project, (x) were bids solicited, (1) if yes, how was this process determined, (2) when was this process determined, (3) which individuals were consulted, (4) which organizations were consulted, (5) on what date was the processed finalized, (6) on whose authority?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 625--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to industrial policy related to defence procurement: (a) broken down by contractor, how many dollars have been contracted to businesses in the federal riding of Kingston and the Islands under the Industrial and Regional Benefit Policy since 2006; (b) broken down by contractor, how many person-years of employment have been contracted to businesses in the federal riding of Kingston and the Islands under the Industrial and Regional Benefits Policy since 2006; (c) broken down by contractor, what are all the projects completed in the federal riding of Kingston and the Islands under the Industrial and Regional Benefits Policy since 2006; (d) broken down by contractor, how many dollars have been contracted to businesses in the federal riding of Kingston and the Islands under the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy since January 2014; (e) broken down by contractor, how many person-years of employment have been contracted to businesses in the federal riding of Kingston and the Islands under the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy since January 2014; and (f) broken down by contractor, what are all the projects completed in the federal riding of Kingston and the Islands under the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy since January 2014?
Response
(Return tabled)