Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 8 of 8
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 1039--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to the National Seniors Council, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as the National Seniors Council does not award grants and contributions, a nil response is applicable to this question.

Question No. 1040--
Ms. Lise St-Denis:
With regard to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):
Mr. Speaker, from January 1, 2011 to the present, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation did not award grants or contributions.

Question No. 1042--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to the February 2012 flight path change for arrivals to Toronto Pearson International Airport (Pearson): (a) were public consultations done in anticipation of the change in flight path and, if so, (i) how many consultations took place, (ii) where did they take place, (iii) in what format, (iv) how were the affected residents made aware of the consultations, (v) were municipal, provincial and federal political representatives of the affected communities consulted; (b) has there been a change in the volume of air traffic over the riding of St. Paul’s since the flight path change was implemented, including (i) what was the average number of aircraft arriving per day to Pearson over St. Paul’s before the flight path change was implemented, (ii) what is the average number of aircraft arriving over St. Paul’s since the flight path change was implemented; (c) has there been a change to the average altitude of aircraft flying over St. Paul’s since the flight path change was implemented, including (i) what was the average altitude of aircraft flying over St. Paul’s before the flight path change was implemented, (ii) what is the average altitude of aircraft flying over St. Paul’s since the flight path change was implemented, (iii) what was the median altitude of aircraft flying over St. Paul’s before the flight path change was implemented, (iv) what is the median altitude of aircraft flying over St. Paul’s since the flight path change was implemented; (d) did Nav Canada or Transport Canada look at other options for flight patterns as part of the review process leading to the flight path change and, if so, (i) were there other options over less densely populated areas, (ii) if so, why were these options not chosen; (e) what mitigation measures have Nav Canada and Transport Canada considered regarding the increased aviation noise in St. Paul’s; and (f) are there currently any plans to make changes to flight paths over St. Paul’s or initiate other mitigation measures before the next four-year review?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the flight path changes are the responsibility of NAV Canada.

Question No. 1043--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to funding for First Nations students in 2010 and 2011: what is the average per student funding provided by the government for First Nations students attending one of the 518 band operated schools through the contribution agreements for those schools, not including (i) capital costs, (ii) money provided for First Nations students resident on reserve, but who attended provincial schools, (iii) funding provided through proposal driven programs that are supplementary to the elementary and secondary education program, (iv) funding provided under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey Education Agreement and the British Columbia First Nations Education Authority?
Response
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada is concerned, our response is as follows.
In 2010-2011, the Government of Canada invested approximately $1.5 billion to support first nation elementary and secondary education, with an additional $304 million provided to first nations for the construction and maintenance of education infrastructure on reserve. Note that all financial data is sourced from AANDC’s financial system and reflects total expenditures transferred by AANDC to first nations and other eligible recipients for the purposes of supporting elementary and secondary education for first nation students ordinarily resident on reserve.
These investments supported approximately 117,500 first nation students, ordinarily residing on reserve, in their elementary or secondary education. Note that student numbers are derived from AANDC nominal roll data for the 2010-11 school year. Taking into consideration that a number of these students were part-time, for example kindergarten, this translated into 111,711 full-time equivalent students, FTEs, receiving support in 2010-2011. This number includes an estimated 10,343 FTEs that are covered under self-government education agreements, as well as 38 FTEs that are funded through the Yukon regional office but reside and go to school in northern British Columbia.
Approximately 60%, or 67,568 FTEs, of these students attended band-operated schools, while 36%, or 40,732 FTEs, attended provincially operated schools. The remaining 4%, or 3,411 FTEs, of students attended private schools or one of the seven federally operated schools.
On a per capita basis, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, AANDC, provided approximately $13,524 per FTE in 2010-2011. Not included in this calculation is the $304 million to maintain and improve education infrastructure for band-operated schools. It should be noted that there is considerable variation in the level of per-student funding across the country, and any funding comparisons must consider the factors that influence per-student funding levels in order to be meaningful, such as school size, geographic location, et cetera.
In 2010-2011, AANDC’s expenditures for first nation elementary and secondary education comprised a set of basic services and proposal-based programs. Some of these programs and services apply to first nation students attending both band-operated and provincial schools and, with the exception of instructional services and high cost special education, cannot be accurately broken down between those who attend band schools and those who attend provincial schools.
It should also be noted that these expenditures reflect the funding provided by AANDC to first nation communities that generally have the flexibility to adjust funding levels to address their priorities within the terms and conditions of the respective programs.

Question No. 1044--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to Canadians diagnosed with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): (a) what funding has been allocated to research this illness in the last two years; (b) how does the government propose to encourage Canadian research into ME/CFS so that the level of research into this complex, multi-system illness is commensurate with its extent and impact; (c) what is the government doing to develop strategies and programs to meet the needs of Canadians with ME/CFS; (d) how is the government ensuring that health professionals are aware of the following documents, (i) the Canadian Consensus Document for ME/CFS (ME/CFS: A Clinical Case Definition and Guidelines for Medical Practitioners), (ii) Canadian Consensus Document for Fibromyalgia (Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Clinical Case Definition and Guidelines for Medical Practitioners); (e) when will the government perform the following tasks in relation to the Consensus Document for ME/CFS posted on the Public Health Agency of Canada's website, (i) improve the location of the document on the website in order to facilitate location of this document, (ii) post the French version of this document; (f) why is the Fibromyalgia Consensus Document not posted as a Guideline on the Public Health Agency of Canada's website; (g) what steps is the government taking to ensure that health professionals, patients, and the public have access to science-based, authoritative and timely information on ME/CFS; (h) how soon will the government post other information related to ME/CFS on government websites; (i) what is the government doing to ensure access to ME/CFS knowledgeable physicians and appropriate health care on a timely basis and how are they working with the provinces, territories, professional organizations, educational institutions and other stakeholders to meet these needs; (j) how is the government working with stakeholders to deal with other needs of Canadians with ME/CFS shown by the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) including, (i) reducing the levels of unmet home care needs, (ii) reducing the levels of food insecurity, (iii) increasing the sense of community belonging experienced by Canadians with this condition; (k) how will the surveillance report on ME/CFS, prepared from analysis of data collected from the 2005 CCHS, be used to improve the situation for Canadians with ME/CFS; and (l) how will the government monitor the extent and impact of ME/CFS and these other conditions on an annual basis given that questions regarding ME/CFS, Fibromyalgia and Multiple Chemical Sensitivities were dropped from the CCHS after 2005?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government supports provincial and territorial health care delivery through fiscal transfers and targeted programs. Unlike previous governments that balanced their books on the backs of the provincial and territorial governments, we have committed to a long-term stable funding arrangement that will see health care transfers reach historic levels of $40 billion by the end of the decade. Health transfers from the federal government to provinces grew by 40 percent between 2005-2006 and 2012-2013. Our investments in health care will help preserve Canada’s health care system so it will be there when Canadians need it.
With respect to research and awareness, in May 2008, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, coordinated a meeting with the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association of Ontario and other stakeholders to explore ways to increase knowledge and awareness of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, ME/CFS, and to address research needs. This meeting led to the first Canadian national scientific seminar on ME/CFS in Calgary in November 2008. This seminar was held to raise awareness, increase medical practitioners’ knowledge, and improve medical treatment for patients with ME/CFS. An article on this seminar was published by PHAC and can be found at http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcbc/29-3/pdf/cdic29-3-6-eng.pdf.
CIHR has invested $28,000 since 2009-2010 in research related to ME/CFS. In addition, CIHR’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, IMHA, has set aside a separate pool of funds in its undergraduate studentship program for myalgic encephalomyelitis and fybromyagalia. Details are available at http://www.researchnet-recherchenet.ca/rnr16/vwOpprtntyDtls.do?prog=1699&view=currentOpps&org=CIHR&type=AND&resultCount=25&sort=program&all=1&masterList=tru.e.
Surveillance of ME/CFS and fibromyalgia is undertaken by PHAC in looking at trends in disease prevalence in order to inform program and policy decisions. Data from the 2010 Canadian Community Health Survey, CCHS, allow PHAC to produce scientific surveillance information on ME/CFS, raise awareness and support efforts to increase understanding of the impact of these conditions.
The questions on ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivities were asked of all CCHS respondents in 2010. Analysis of the 2005 and 2010 data demonstrated that there were no changes in the prevalence of these conditions in this five-year period; therefore, maintaining the data collection on these conditions every four years is appropriate.
The Public Health Agency of Canada's website is aimed at delivering information and services to users that are relevant and applicable to its mandate and that of the Government of Canada. While PHAC facilitates the sharing of clinical information via its website, it is the responsibility of health care professional associations and medical bodies to ensure that relevant clinical information is available to their members. The following documents are available at the links indicated below: Canadian Consensus Document for ME/CFS: A Clinical Case Definition and Guidelines for Medical Practitioners at http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/az-index-eng.php#C; and Canadian Consensus Document for Fibromyalgia: A Clinical Case Definition and Guidelines for Medical Practitioners at http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/az-index-eng.php#F.

Question No. 1048--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to labour organizations, as of October 23, 2012, how many of these organizations (including unions, groups, federations, congresses, labour councils, joint councils, assemblies, central committees and joint panels duly constituted under the authority of such an organization) are there across the country, broken down by province?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Labour, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, based on a survey of labour organizations with 50 or more covered members, the number of unions in Canada for 2011 is 778 with 14,557 locals. There is no breakdown by province available. The 2011 survey of labour organizations, published in the document entitled “Union coverage in Canada 2011”, is available at the following link: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/labour_relations/info_analysis/union_membership/2011/tableofcontents.shtml.

Question No. 1052--
Mr. Jamie Nicholls:
With regard to the project to reopen the Soulanges Canal: (a) does the government anticipate that the reopening of the Soulanges Canal will have a significant positive impact on economic development in Vaudreuil-Soulanges; (b) does the government plan to commit the funds required to update the technical, environmental and socio-economic studies linked to reopening the Soulanges Canal; and (c) does the government plan to invest the funds required to reopen the Soulanges Canal?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada does not manage canals/waterways.

Question No. 1053--
Mr. Dennis Bevington:
With regards to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, in detail and for each year since the Act was passed: (a) how many cases have been considered by the government; (b) what are the details of these cases; (c) which cases have been rejected and why were they rejected; and (d) what actions has the minister taken and will take to ensure all those who come to Canada are held accountable for violation of the Act?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (c), Canada’s crimes against humanity and war crimes program is a coordinated intergovernmental effort between the Department of Justice; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP; Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC: and the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA. Allegations are received by the program through various means. Some allegations come directly from screening methods employed by CIC and the CBSA. Other complaints are received from the public, the media, other countries and international institutions.
Since the inception of the program, CIC and the CBSA have worked on thousands of cases in the context of war crimes. Due to the nature and purpose of RCMP investigations, the number of cases referred to the criminal inventory is considerably lower. The program’s coordination and operations committee, PCOC, composed of members from each of the program partners, facilitates interdepartmental coordination in assessing allegations and referring cases to the appropriate partner for further action. The program partners have continued to examine allegations of modern war crimes to determine which remedy would be best suited for each allegation. For example, in order for an allegation to be added to the RCMP/Justice department criminal inventory, among other considerations, the allegation must disclose personal involvement or command responsibility, and the evidence pertaining to the allegation must be corroborated and obtainable in a reasonable and rapid fashion.
When deciding whether to initiate a prosecution pursuant to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General must consider two issues: first, whether the evidence demonstrates that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction; and second, if so, does the public interest require a prosecution to be pursued?
With regard to (b), the 12th report on Canada’s Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes 2008-2011 provides a snapshot of the number and type of files that form part of Canada’s crimes against humanity and war crimes program.
This most recent report indicates that there are 58 modern war crimes files in the RCMP/Justice department inventory, and is available at the following link: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/warcrimes-crimesdeguerre/researchreports-rechercherapports-eng.asp.
Since the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act was passed in 2000, the Deputy Attorney General of Canada has consented to commencing two cases for criminal prosecution.
In May 2009, Mr. Munyaneza was convicted of seven counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The offences were committed against the Tutsi minority during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. In the second case, Mr. Mungwarere stands charged with crimes against humanity, also allegedly committed during the Rwandan genocide. His trial commenced in June 2012 and is ongoing.
With regard to (d), the goal of Canada’s crimes against humanity and war crimes program is to deny safe haven in Canada to people involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. The Government of Canada demonstrated its commitment to the program by granting it funding on a permanent basis in the 2011 federal budget. Further details of the program’s progress and activities can be found in the 12th report on Canada’s Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes 2008-2011.

Question No. 1055--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to overseas tax evasion: (a) of the 106 Canadians contained in a list of people with money in secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein, how many account holders or beneficiaries applied for the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) Voluntary Disclosure Program; and (b) what individuals or organizations have lobbied the Minister of National Revenue or CRA on matters relating to overseas tax evasion, and on whose behalf were these efforts made?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), since receiving the names and starting compliance action on the 106 Canadians whose names appear on the list of having accounts in Liechtenstein, none of them have been accepted under the voluntary disclosures program, VDP, with respect to accounts in Liechtenstein.
With regard to part (b), the Lobbying Act was established on August 5, 2009. The CRA’s own records on lobbying activities begin on September 2, 2009.
A search was completed of the CRA’s records on lobbying activities from September 2, 2009 to September 1, 2012, the end date of the last available quarterly lobbying reports. This completed search has indicated that no individuals or organizations have lobbied the Minister of National Revenue or CRA’s designated public office holders on matters relating to overseas tax evasion.

Question No. 1057--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) what programs, grants and funding sources are available for authors, editors, or other content producers who have written, are writing, or are planning to write any kind of written material, such as books or magazines, broken down by (i) the eligibility requirements, (ii) the amount of funding available; and (b) how many people have received funding over the past five years, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the type of funding available, (iii) the program under which the funding was received, (iv) the project for which the funding was received?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Canadian Heritage does not fund authors, editors or other content producers directly. Federal funding of this type is only available through the Canada Council for the Arts.

Question No. 1060--
Mr. Louis Plamondon:
With regard to enforcing the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, from 2006 to 2012, for cases submitted and examined by the Minister of Justice: (a) what cases were recommended to him and retained, and why; and (b) what cases were recommended to him and not retained, and why?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, CAHWCA, was enacted in 2000. Subsections 9(3) and 9(4) provide that the Attorney General of Canada or the deputy attorney general of Canada must give his or her consent for the commencement of a prosecution pursuant to the act. With the creation of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada in 2006, the director of public prosecutions, DPP, is the deputy attorney general for the purposes of initiating prosecutions.
Since 2006, the Attorney General or the DPP as deputy attorney general has consented to the institution of the prosecution of one criminal case, Regina v. Jacques Mungwarere, pursuant to the CAHWCA. This case is ongoing.
In making a decision whether to prosecute any case, Crown counsel must consider two issues: first, whether the evidence demonstrates that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction; and second, if so, whether the public interest require a prosecution to be pursued. These same issues are considered by the Attorney General or DPP when deciding whether to consent to a prosecution pursuant to the CAHWCA.
With regard to (b), when considering any case that is recommended for prosecution pursuant to the CAHWCA, the same two issues as described in (a) above, are considered. No cases have been recommended for prosecution that were not prosecuted.

Question No. 1061--
Mr. Louis Plamondon:
With regard to people convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity: (a) how many people convicted of war crimes have we identified in Canada and, among these, how many are Canadian citizens, broken down by province; (b) how many people convicted of crimes against humanity have we identified in Canada and, among these, how many are Canadian citizens, broken down by province; and (c) for foreign nationals, in the case of people convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity, how long have they been in Canada and why are they still in Canada?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), only one person has been convicted pursuant to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, CAHWCA, which was enacted in 2000. The CAHWCA gives Canada the power to prosecute these crimes wherever they were committed if the perpetrator later moves to, or visits, Canada. Désiré Munyaneza was convicted in May 2009 of seven counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. He is not a Canadian citizen. He resided in Quebec before his conviction.
As for (c), Mr. Munyaneza, a foreign national, arrived in Canada in 1997 and applied for refugee status. His refugee claim was denied, a decision that was upheld through various legal appeals. He was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2005 and charged with two counts of genocide, two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes under the CAHWCA. He was found guilty on all charges. Désiré Munyaneza was convicted by the Quebec Superior Court in 2009 for the commission of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 2004 Rwandan genocide. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years. He is currently appealing his conviction to the Quebec Court of Appeal and has not been removed from Canada due to imprisonment.
More information is publicly available in the 12th report of Canada’s Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, 2008-2011: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/wc-cg/wc-cg2011-eng.html.

Question No. 1066--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to Canadian Forces Base 9 Wing Gander: (a) what is the current status, including start dates (both planned and actual), for exactly what work, to be completed by what date, and for exactly what purpose, of (i) Building 86, (ii) the construction of a new headquarters, (iii) the new building for 91 Construction Engineering Flight, (iv) the new Logistics building, and (v) all other construction, renovation, or infrastructure improvement projects at the base; (b) what expenditures in (a) have been (i) budgeted, (ii) spent, and (iii) anticipated; and (c) what facilities, buildings, or infrastructure on the base are not the subject of any construction, renovation, or infrastructure improvement projects?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), Building 86 has been demolished. All cleanup work was completed on November 16, 2011.
With regard to (a)(ii) and (iv), this two-phase project will consolidate 9 Wing support units into a complex of two multipurpose facilities. The project is still in the definition phase and the start and end dates have not been confirmed yet. This project includes the demolition of a number of buildings.
With regard to (a)(iii), this project involves the construction of a one-storey structure to replace the existing 91 Construction Engineering facilities. It will contain administration offices, training rooms, shops, supply storage areas and an outdoor vehicle compound. Construction is expected to start in summer 2013, and is expected to be completed in fiscal year 2014-15.
With regard to (a)(v) every building and piece of infrastructure on the Wing is subject to some form of renovation, construction or improvement.
With regard to (b)(i) and (ii), Building 86 has been demolished. All cleanup work was completed on November 16, 2011. As for the new headquarters and logistics building, a definition expenditure authority for $2.4 million, excluding taxes, was approved on 28 July 2008. As the project is still in the definition phase, the total value of the project has not been finalized. Approximately $1.76 million was spent in fiscal year 2011-12, and $0.5 million expenditure is anticipated in fiscal year 2012-13. As for 91 Construction Engineering Flight, $5.67 million, excluding taxes, was budgeted for this project on 19 July 2010. The final budget costs are under review. Approximately $0.25 million has been spent on this project. The Department of National Defence anticipates spending $0.53 million in fiscal year 2012-13.
With regard to (b)(iii), all expenditures from question (a) were anticipated.
With regard to (c), every building and piece of infrastructure on the Wing is subject to some form of renovation, construction or improvement. All facilities are subject to day-to-day operation and oversight by DND personnel.

Question No. 1071--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, given that it has been due for revision since April 2012: (a) when is the government planning to carry out the review; (b) how will the government carry it out; and (c) will the government increase awareness of this Act and, if yes, how?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada is strongly committed to maintaining and enhancing trust in the integrity of the federal public sector, and to ensuring transparency, accountability and ethical conduct in the workplace and with Canadians.
The government is committed to reviewing the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act in keeping with the requirements of the legislation.
With regard to (b), a process for conducting the review is under consideration.
With regard to (c), the government promotes awareness of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act through meetings for practitioners, workshops, working groups and information sessions. Numerous communication products and support tools for organizations and employees such as guides, fact sheets, checklists and FAQs are currently available to all employees and the public on the TBS website, and more are under development.

Question No. 1079--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Automotive Innovation Fund expiring in 2013, have the Minister of Industry and Minister of Finance considered: (a) extending the Automotive Innovation Fund past the current 2013 deadline; and (b) renewing the program for another five-year period?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the automotive innovation fund, AIF, was established to support strategic research and development, R and D, projects to build innovative, greener, more fuel-efficient vehicles. To date, the government has made investments in Ford, Linamar, Toyota and Magna. These repayable contributions have leveraged up to $1.6 billion in R and D and innovation investments in Canada.
On January 4, 2013, the Government of Canada announced a commitment of an additional $250 million over five years to the automotive innovation fund. The renewal of the fund will continue to stimulate research and innovation and will further strengthen the sector and secure Canada’s automotive footprint.
The AIF is only one part of the government’s broader approach to ensuring the right economic conditions are in place to support a strong Canadian auto industry.

Question No. 1097--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the government's answer to Written Question No. 950 in the current session of Parliament, pursuant to what policy, directive, order, guideline, law or other document are the file numbers which were, in part, the subject of that question, deemed to be confidential?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the decisions relating to the marine rescue sub-centre and marine communications and traffic services centres closures were made by cabinet and are therefore considered cabinet confidences.
The requirement to protect the confidentiality of cabinet confidences is protected by convention, common law and legislative provisions.

Question No. 1101--
Ms. Christine Moore:
With regard to the concerns raised in Chapter 5 of the 2012 Fall Report of the Auditor General concerning National Defence real property: (a) what Budget 2012 funding was internally reallocated within the Department of National Defence to address these concerns; (b) what was the amount of this funding, by military base and by off-base military building or location; (c) from which expenditure items were these funds reallocated; and (d) what type of work was funded by these reallocations, on which bases and over what time frame?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, chapter 5 of the 2012 fall report of the Auditor General concerning National Defence real property made 12 recommendations that focused primarily on improvements to the management of the National Defence real property portfolio.
The Department of National Defence has accepted the recommendations and is working towards their implementation. The department’s budget is allocated through the main and supplementary estimates rather than budget 2012 proposals.
With respect to the recommendation of the Auditor General on compliance with health and safety legislation, regulations and policies, paragraph 5.63, the department is implementing a national remedial solution that will provide bases and wings across Canada with the additional capacity necessary to inspect, test and maintain fire protection systems in accordance with national codes. The phased implementation of the national remedial solution will involve the centralization of responsibility and funding, and in this context, it is anticipated that costs related to the delivery of the national inspection, testing and maintenance solution will be proportionally borne by each respective custodian via a permanent baseline funding transfer.
The Canadian Forces fire marshal has developed the necessary contractual documentation to implement a regionally managed get well program. The first phase will cover Suffield, Wainwright and Cold Lake. The second phase will cover the Quebec region and the east coast. The third phase will cover the remainder of the Prairies and the west coast. Finally, the fourth phase will cover the central region and the north. A tender for a regional contract to conduct inspection, testing and maintenance activities at Suffield, Wainwright and Cold Lake was posted on MERX with a closing date of January 22, 2013. The first phase of the get well program will also serve to evaluate the effectiveness of the regional approach with a view to adjusting the implementation plan should it prove necessary. The aim is to have all necessary contractual mechanisms in place by the end of fiscal year 2013-14.

Question No. 1106--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to websites accessed on the personal departmental desktops computers, lap top computers, mobile phones, including Blackberries, tablet computers, or other internet enabled devices paid for with taxpayers dollars to the Minister of State (Democratic Reform): (a) what are all the URLs of all websites accessed on said devices between 12:01 a.m. on December 6, 2012, and 12:01 a.m. on December 8, 2012, date and times inclusive; and (b) at what times were those websites accessed?
Response
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office has no records related to this request.
Aglukkaq, LeonaAir transportationAshfield, KeithAttorney General of CanadaAutomotive industryAutomotive Innovation FundBennett, CarolynBevington, DennisBloc Québécois CaucusBoulerice, AlexandreCanadian Coast Guard ...Show all topics
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 1015--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to Aboriginal affairs, how many persons have been registered on the Indian Register on or after November 20, 2002, as members of (i) the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation, and (ii) the Mushuau Innu First Nation, distinguishing the number of persons so added who were born before November 20, 2002, and those who were born on or after November 20, 2002?
Response
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the two first nations were created by order in council on November 21, 2002. At that point, there were 691 people on the founding list for the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation, and 491 people on the founding list for the Mushuau Innu First Nation.
Additionally, there was a follow-up list on August 22, 2003, which added 158 members to the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation list and 94 members to the Mushuau Innu First Nation list.
Since that time, an additional 585 persons were added to the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation list, with 322 of those individuals being born before November 20, 2002, and 263 individuals being born after that date.
Three hundred persons were added to the Mushuau Innu First Nation list, with 96 of those individuals being born before November 20, 2002, and 204 individuals being born after that date.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2012-12-04 12:13 [p.12811]
Does the hon. member for Newton—North Delta have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 12:14 p.m., pursuant to an order made Monday, December 3, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Before completing debate at report stage of Bill C-45, I wish to explain the process to the House.
Since the motions in Group No. 1 have already been proposed, I will only refer to the motion number when putting the questions on the motions in that group.
With respect to the motions in Group No. 2, they will be put to the House in the usual manner. When the House is ready to proceed with the putting of the motions of said group, I will only refer to the motion number.
To this end, I have asked that copies of the report stage section of today's notice paper be placed on each member's desk for ease of reference.
I would like to point out that this is the same process that was used last June at report stage of Bill C-38.
We shall now proceed to the putting of the question on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is not in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour. Because the motion was moved in the past, the member who moved the motion does not necessarily have to be present in the House.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 22, 25, 26, 34 to 38, 61, 63 to 65, 95, 96, 99 to 106, 108 to 110, 114, 115, 139, 142 to 147, 155, 157 to 160 and 162.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The recorded division on Motion No. 7 is deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 9, 11, 18, 32, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 74, 97, 111 to 113, 116, 131, 136, 138 and 140.
I will now put the motions in Group No. 2 to the House.
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 749--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to criminal record checks and vulnerable sector checks performed by the Canadian Criminal Real Time Identification Services for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP): (a) which RCMP detachments have digital fingerprint scanners and which do not; and (b) how many scanners does the RCMP plan to add in each province and/or territory in the future, at what locations, and when?
Response
(Return tabled)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 815--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the government-owned aircraft, since September 20, 2011, to present: (a) by fiscal quarter, what is the number of times government aircraft have been used by a minister, including the Prime Minister, or a minister's, including the Prime Minister's, exempt staff; and (b) what is every aircraft on which a minister, the Prime Minister, or a minister's or the Prime Minister's exempt staff have flown and, for each aircraft, what is (i) the tail number, make and model of the aircraft, (ii) the average hourly cost to operate the aircraft, (iii) the average hourly cost for food and beverages while the aircraft is in use, (iv) the department with tasking authority for the aircraft, (v) the title of the person with tasking authority for the aircraft, (vi) the number of times the aircraft has been used by a minister or the Prime Minister, (vii) the number of times the aircraft has been used by a member of a minister's or the Prime Minister's staff without the minister or the Prime Minister being on board the aircraft?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-411-659 Canadian Human Rights Commission8555-411-660 Federal Contaminated Sites ...8555-411-661 CF-188 Hornet aircraft8555-411-662 Government funding8555-411-663 Canada Border Services Agency8555-411-665 Economic Action Plan 20128555-411-666 Government employment levels8555-411-667 Temporary personnel services8555-411-668 Canada's Action Plan for th ...8555-411-669 Canadian International Deve ...8555-411-671 Local Initiative Fund ...Show all topics
View Denise Savoie Profile
NDP (BC)
View Denise Savoie Profile
2011-11-18 12:15

Question No. 173--
Mr. Jean-François Fortin:
With regard to the mitigation measures announced by the Prime Minister on June 6 for disaster victims in riparian areas in the Gaspé and Montérégie: (a) what is the exact description of these measures; (b) which government department or agency will be responsible for these measures; (c) who will these measures be directed at; (d) what criteria will be used in implementing these measures; (e) what amount does the government expect to spend on these measures; (f) on what date will these measures be accessible; (g) has the government discussed these measures with the Government of Quebec; and (h) how does the government intend to coordinate its efforts with those of the Government of Quebec?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes the value and contribution of proactive mitigation measures taken before an emergency or disaster occurs to eliminate or reduce the impacts and risks of hazards in order to protect lives, property, the environment, and reduce economic disruption. Not only does mitigation serve to reduce the impact of disasters on the lives of Canadians, but it is also a cost-effective approach for reducing the economic burden of disaster response and recovery costs on all levels of government, businesses, communities, families and individuals.
On June 6, 2011, while visiting the Quebec region of Montérégie to see first-hand the impact of the 2011 spring floods, the Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada will share on a 50-50 basis the costs of any permanent flood mitigation measures taken specifically for this year’s flooding that are not otherwise eligible under the federal disaster financial assistance arrangements.
Public Safety, the lead federal department for meeting this commitment, has been working with other government departments and the Province of Quebec to establish a one-time mitigation contribution program to cost share eligible permanent flood mitigation measures. Input is being sought from the Province of Quebec on the types of measures put in place and their costs to inform the development of the program terms and conditions, including the specific eligibility criteria for cost sharing.
The principles enshrined in “An Emergency Management Framework for Canada”, the national framework, second edition, approved by federal-provincial-territorial, FPT, ministers responsible for emergency management in January 2011, and in the national disaster mitigation strategy, endorsed by FPT ministers in January 2008, are being used to inform the development of this one-time mitigation contribution program.
As outlined in these key FPT documents, mitigation is an important part of a robust emergency management framework. Disaster prevention and mitigation measures are those that eliminate or reduce the impacts and risks of hazards through proactive measures taken before an emergency or disaster occurs. Measures may be structural, for example, flood dikes, or non-structural, for example, land use zoning and building codes.
Public Safety is seeking detailed estimates from the Province of Quebec on the costs of the permanent mitigation measures put in place for this year’s flooding in order to recommend a funding amount to establish a one-time mitigation contribution program, which would allow reimbursement of eligible incurred costs.
Once the program is established, the Government of Canada will share on a 50-50 basis the costs of eligible permanent flood mitigation measures put in place by the Province of Quebec. The exact amount that the Government of Canada will reimburse will depend on the costs of the eligible provincial measures put in place. Until a formal claim has been submitted by the Province under the program, it is not possible to estimate how much the Government of Canada will spend.
Public Safety is working closely with the Ministère de la Sécurité publique of Quebec as the program is being developed and will continue to do so as we move forward. The goal is to have the program established in early 2012. Once in place, Public Safety will share the detailed eligibility criteria with the province and work with it to facilitate the processing of its cost-sharing claim so that funds can flow in as timely a manner as possible.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 2--
Mr. Bruce Hyer:
With regard to corporate taxation: (a) how many corporations in Canada paid no tax in each of the last ten years; and (b) for each corporation identified in (a), what were its revenues and its profits in each of the last ten years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 3--
Mr. Dennis Bevington:
With regard to the expenditures of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as identified in the 2011-12 Main Estimates: (a) what programs are funded under the lines (i) Northern Land, Resources and Environmental Management (page 191), (ii) Contribution for promoting the safe use, development, conservation and protection of the North’s natural resources (page 194), (iii) Contributions for promoting the political, social and scientific development of Canada’s three territories (page 195), (iv) Contributions for promoting regional development in Canada’s three territories (page 197), (v) Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Community Development (page 196); and (b) for each program identified in (a), what are the names or identities of each individual recipient of funds from each program and what amount of funding was provided to each recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 4--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to the PROminent FUNCtionaries of the Communist Party (PROFUNC), run by the government between 1950-1983: (a) when requested by an individual who believes his or her name may be on the PROFUNC list, will the government disclose whether or not that individual's name is on the list; (b) what was done with the names on the PROFUNC list once PROFUNC was discontinued; (c) were any of the names or was any of the information about individuals named on the PROFUNC list ever turned over to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), or any other security agency, at any time after 1983; (d) were any of the names or was any of the information about individuals named on the list ever shared with the Government of the United States or any of its security, policing or military bodies; (e) did any of the RCMP personnel who helped compile or maintain PROFUNC work for CSIS or other security agencies following the end of the program; and (f) what other materials were created by individuals working for PROFUNC between 1950-1983 (i.e., minutes of meetings, reports filed by security agents, other documents)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 5--
Ms. Libby Davies:
What is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2009-2010, up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Vancouver East, identifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 6--
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
With respect to the Veterans Burial Regulations and the Corporation named by the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to administer the Veterans Funeral and Burial program, specifically the Last Post Fund (LPF): (a) what is the annual amount of financial support and funding provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (b) what is the statistical information, provided to the minister, on reimbursements provided by the LPF to assist in payment of funeral and burial costs for the estates of (i) First World War veterans, (ii) Second World War veterans, (iii) Korean War veterans, (iv) estates of veterans who received a disability benefit from Veterans Affairs Canada, (iv) estates of allied veterans; (c) what are the details of the annual administrative and operating costs of the LPF from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (d) what are the details of the annual program costs of the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (e) what are the details of the annual salary costs for LPF staff from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (f) what are the details of how frequently business plans, operating budgets, capital budgets and performance reports are submitted by the Corporation to the Minister; (g) what are the details of any departmental analysis concerning the raising of the means test for eligibility for support through the Veterans Funeral and Burial program; (h) what are the details of any departmental analysis concerning the extension of eligibility for a funeral and burial to all estate-tested Canadian Forces (CF) and RCMP veterans; (i) what is the estimated financial cost of extending eligibility to the Veterans Funeral and Burial program to all estate-tested CF and RCMP; (j) how often does the department conduct an assurance audit of the LPF; (k) when was the last time the government conducted an assurance audit of the LPF; and (l) when does the department plan to conduct the next assurance audit of the LPF?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 7--
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
With respect to Canadian Forces veterans trying to obtain an end to the deduction of Pension Act disability payments from Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) Long Term Disability benefits: (a) what is the total amount of money spent by all departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, from March 2007 to 2011 inclusively, on the defence against the SISIP class action lawsuit; (b) what is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel, from March 2007 to 2011 inclusively, on the SISIP class action lawsuit; and (c) what is the total amount of money spent by all government departments and agencies on the SISIP class action lawsuit, from March 2007 to 2011 inclusively, including all costs associated with the work of the Department of Justice?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 8--
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
With regard to veterans’ long-term care facilities and veterans’ contract beds in community care facilities: (a) what are all facilities, by province and territory, that are under contract by the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide veterans' beds; (b) for each facility identified in (a), what is (i) the number of beds, (ii) the average cost of a veteran’s bed; (c) when, by facility and province or territory, does the department expect to close veterans' beds based on the declining population of its Second World War and Korean War veteran clientele; (d) what are the details of any departmental analysis concerning the expansion of the definition of eligible veterans for admittance to veterans' health care centres; (e) what are the details of any departmental analysis concerning the government’s payment for veterans' beds at long-term care facilities or community care facilities for the spouses of Second World War and Korean War veterans; (f) does the department have any estimates of the cost of paying for veterans' beds at veterans’ long-term care or community care facilities for the spouses of Second World War and Korean War veterans and, if so, what are they; (g) what, if any, are the plans for the long-term care of modern-day Canadian Forces (CF) veterans who require long-term care and do not meet the criteria for admittance to veterans’ beds at veterans’ long-term care or community care facilities; and (h) is the department engaged in any discussion of the development of specialized medical centres for modern-day CF and RCMP veterans?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 9--
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
With regard to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB), legislated by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act: (a) who are all permanent and temporary members of the Board, broken down by province and territory, appointed by the Governor in Council since 2006; (b) has the government considered disbanding the VRAB; (c) has the government considered modifying the VRAB; (d) has the government considered implementing a policy to ensure that VRAB appointees by the Governor in Council must have (i) military or RCMP experience, (ii) medical experience; (e) what were the total annual federal funds provided to the VRAB from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (f) what is a breakdown of the annual spending of the VRAB, from 2006 to 2011 inclusively, as it relates to (i) program costs, (ii) administration costs, (iii) salary costs of the VRAB board members, (iv) travel costs for the VRAB board members, (v) VRAB staff costs, (vi) VRAB staff travel costs; (g) how many reports has the VRAB chairperson made to the Minister with respect to the use of resources allocated to the Board from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (h) when was the last time the Department of Veterans Affairs completed an assurance audit of the VRAB and when is the department planning to conduct the next audit; (i) how often does the department conduct assurance audits of the VRAB; (j) has the department planned an extensive review of the administration of the VRAB; (k) does the Department of Veterans Affairs regularly analyze the reasons why pension decisions are overturned by the VRAB in favour of the client with regard to the interpretation of (i) legislation, (ii) medical issues, (iii) legal issues; (l) has the VRAB provided information to the department on how many pension decisions, made since the VRAB's inception, have been in favour of the veteran client using the benefit of the doubt clause (section 70); and (m) how many pension matters or cases has the VRAB referred back to the Minister for reconsideration, by year, from 2006 to 2011 inclusively?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 10--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the full process currently being undertaken by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) regarding chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), including the August 26, 2010, meeting of the Scientific Expert Working Group (SEWG) and the CIHR’s “knowledge synthesis review”: (a) what is the accepted operating definition of “conflict of interest” for the CIHR, (i) why was no disclosure statement made by all participants who attended the August 26, 2010, joint meeting of the CIHR and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC), (ii) are there plans to provide an opportunity to declare possible conflicts of interest subsequent to the meeting; (b) what are the details of all information produced and circulated by the CIHR in January 2011 regarding follow-up care for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and to which organizations was the information sent; (c) will the disclosure statement to be signed by members of the SEWG at its next meeting in June 2011 include specific reference to any (i) consultancy, (ii) grant support, (iii) membership on advisory councils, (iv) speaker’s bureau, (v) other sources of funding a member might have; (d) how does the CIHR plan to ensure that all members of the SEWG have the same understanding of private or personal interests that could influence decision-making; (e) will all disclosure statements in (c) be made publicly available and, if so, when, and, if not, why not; (f) which, if any, of the SEWG’s members have been trained in Dr. Zamboni’s methods and by whom were these members trained; (g) which, if any, of the SEWG’s members have watched diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI and, for each member identified (i) where did this observation take place, (ii) under what guidance, (iii) how many images and treatments were studied by the member; (h) which, if any, of the SEWG’s members have undertaken diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI and, for each member identified, (i) where were these actions performed, (ii) under what guidance, (iii) how many images and treatments were performed by the member;
(i) does the CIHR recognize the emerging scientific discipline of neurovascular disease; (j) does the SEWG include any members of the International Society for NeuroVascular Disease (ISNVD) and, if so, who are these members, and, if not, why not; (k) which, if any, members of the SEWG have attended any of the ISNVD’s conferences, specifying for each such member the conferences that he or she attended; (l) does the inclusion of investigators of the seven MS Society-funded studies in the SEWG comply with the CIHR’s operating definition of “conflict of interest” and, if so, what are the reasons that explain this compliance; (m) regarding the “knowledge synthesis review”, (i) what is the protocol for the review, (ii) how is research deemed to be, or not to be, pertinent, (iii) who specifically is undertaking the review, how were they chosen, and what expertise do they have to undertake the review, (iv) why has the CIHR decided to have them undertake the review, (v) what are the CIHR’s reasons for not having the SEWG undertake the review, (vi) what is the cost of the review, (vii) what is a comprehensive list of abstracts to be reviewed, (viii) what additional material, people, or other sources will be consulted, (ix) will the review include scientific evidence presented at all the major scientific conferences on CCSVI to date, namely, Hamilton (February 2010), New York (July 2010), Washington (October 2010), Katowice (March 2011), Bologna (March 2011), Chicago (April 2011), and San Diego (May 2011), (x) will the review include contacting the leading experts in the field, asking for their unpublished data, visiting their laboratories and operating theatres, (xi) if the answer to (m)(x) is in the affirmative, what, if any, protocol has been established for each contact, and what, if any, weighting will be applied to this evidence; (n) how does the CIHR plan to weigh or asses the seven MS Society-funded studies and the “knowledge synthesis review” in its establishment of any future policy, particularly in its deliberations on whether to undertake clinical trials for CCSVI in Canada; (o) which , if any, members of the SEWG have attended any CCSVI conferences, specifying for each such member (i) what conferences he or she attended, (ii) in what capacity, (iii) who paid for the trip or attendance at the conference, (iv) what written evidence did he or she report to either the CIHR or SEWG, (v) if no written evidence was reported, why not; (p) which members of the CIHR have attended any CCSVI conferences, specifying for each such member (i) what conferences he or she attended, (ii) in what capacity, (iii) who paid for the trip or attendance at the conference, (iv) what written evidence he/she reported to either the CIHR or SEWG, (v) if no written evidence was reported, why not; (q) why has the CIHR decided not to further investigate CCSVI through clinical trials; (r) why has the CIHR decided not to follow recommendations made by the Ontario Association of Neurologists, the Canadian Society of Radiologists, the Canadian Society of Vascular Surgery, the American Society of Interventional Radiology, and the International Union of Phlebology regarding CCSVI;
(s) what does the CIHR consider an “appropriate pace”, a term used in its May 18, 2011, e-mail to Dr. Kirsty Duncan, Member of Parliament for Etobicoke North, for the introduction to Canada of any potential new medical treatment for any medical condition, and how much evidence does the CIHR consider is required before a treatment should undergo clinical trials in Canada in terms of (i) the number of procedures undertaken, (ii) the number of countries undertaking the procedure, (iii) scientific evidence presented in academic peer-reviewed journals, (iv) scientific evidence presented at academic conferences, (v) scientific evidence presented at academic conferences for conditions that are progressive diseases, especially progressive diseases for which there are limited or no options for treatment; (t) what is the CIHR’s accepted protocol, including all necessary steps, for bringing a new treatment to clinical trials in Canada, (i) when was the protocol established, (ii) what treatments have undergone clinical trials as a result of the protocol, (iii) which treatments have been rejected to date; (u) is the creation of a SEWG a standard step in the CIHR’s protocol for bringing a new treatment to clinical trials in Canada, and, (i) if so, since the creation of the protocol, what are all new treatments and their associated SEWGs, (ii) if not, why was this step deemed necessary for approval of clinical trials for CCSVI; (v) what are the last five medical treatments for any medical condition accepted by the CIHR for use in Canada and, for each treatment, what are the details of all evidence required by the CIHR in its decision to have the treatment undergo clinical trials, including, but not limited to, the number of procedures undertaken, the countries undertaking the procedure, and scientific evidence presented in both peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences; and (w) with regard to the MS registry announced March 23, 2011, (i) who specifically is collecting the information, (ii) what precise information is being collected, (iii) what consent will be necessary from patients for any data collection, (iv) when will information begin to be collected, (v) what specific information is being collected regarding the treatment of CCSVI, (vi) what information is being gathered or tracking is being done of individuals who have chosen to have the liberation procedure outside Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 11--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to depleted uranium (DU), military service, and Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) benefits and programs: (a) what are all potential sources of DU to which Canadian Forces (CF) members and veterans might have been exposed between 1990 and the present; (b) what are any operations between 1990 and the present that might have brought CF members and veterans into direct or close contact with DU, including, but not limited to, operations in which Canadian personnel seconded to other military forces were involved; (c) did any CF member or veteran serve between 1999 and 2003 in areas assessed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to be DU areas; (d) what, if any, DU munitions, vehicles made with DU, or ships carrying DU munitions, were used by CF between 1990 and the present; (e) what are all possible exposure routes for each source of DU identified in (a), (b), and (d); (f) what, if any, field measurements were taken around any DU source identified in (a), (b), and (d) and, if such measurements were taken, what was the level of contamination of the environment for each site, for each time sampled; (g) what, if any, studies were undertaken by the Department of National Defence (DND), or any other federal government department or crown corporation, from 1990 to the present, regarding DU environmental contamination linked to the military and what were the chief findings of each such report, including (i) whether it identified a need or made a recommendation to work with caution in DU contaminated areas, (ii) whether it identified a need or made a recommendation to do policy work regarding DU contaminated areas; (h) what follow-up took place concerning the chief recommendations of each report identified in (g), as well as concerning the issues identified in each of (g)(i) and (g)(ii); ¸
(i) what, if any, clean-up operations were undertaken in impact zones between 1990 and the present, and, if such operations were undertaken, why was each clean-up operation deemed necessary, and what national or international recommendations were followed in each clean-up; (j) which, if any, experts were consulted to determine any possible DU contamination between 1990 and the present, and, if experts were consulted, who were they, and in what field or fields did each expert work; (k) what, if any, specific training, equipment and guidance was given to CF members and veterans who were required to work in areas of DU contamination or to conduct any DU field assessments and clean-ups; (l) what, if any, specific radiation field measurement and health and safety equipment was provided to CF members and veterans, including equipment used to determine the presence of DU, and what specific training was provided concerning the use of any such equipment; (m) what, if any, training, equipment and guidance was given to CF members and veterans concerning the handling of both intact and damaged weapons previously used to fire DU munitions; (n) from 1990 to the present (i) what was the CF’s policy regarding transportation, use, exposure, risk mitigation, and testing of DU from 1990 to the present, (ii) how did or does the policy comply with all relevant guidelines and regulations for the protection of the environment and personnel, including, but not limited to, those established in the Canada Labour Code, by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and through the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, (iii) were the guidelines and regulations identified in (ii) followed during CF operations abroad, (iv) how was the policy elaborated in (n)(i), enforced during CF activities both in Canada and abroad; (o) is there a protocol accepted by the government for urine testing for DU and what are its details, including, but not limited to, (i) who should be screened, (ii) following what exposures should screening occur, (iii) which laboratories were or are used for the screening, (iv) what criteria have been used to select the laboratory that conducts the screening and how can quality assurance in screening processes and results be ensured, (v) the maximum acceptable delay between DU exposure to initial screening, (vi) the screening method and how that method was chosen, (vii) the screening schedule, (viii) any follow-up mechanisms, (ix) how screening is documented, (x) when this protocol was accepted; (p) what, if any, screening procedure exists for potential DU exposure for CF members and veterans, including, but not limited to, (i) an exposure questionnaire, (ii) a 24-hour urine collection test, (iii) a detailed physical exam, (iv) clinical tests of organ systems function; (q) what, if any, DU follow-up program or similar program intended to screen and monitor health problems associated with DU exposure is available to CF members and veterans; (r) what, if any, CF members or veterans have been identified and tracked following potential exposure to DU through situations related to (a), (b) and (d), and what was involved in the tracking procedures, specifying whether the tracking included (i) urinary uranium determinations, (ii) clinical laboratory values, (iii) psychiatric and neuro-cognitive assessments, (iv) other forms of tracking;
(s) what, if any, summary statistics are now available for cases identified in (r); (t) what, if any, CF members or veterans have been identified and tracked following exposure to (i) vehicles hit with friendly fire, (ii) burning vehicles, (iii) fires involving DU munitions, (iv) the inspection or salvaging of damaged vehicles; (u) what, if any, information is given to CF members or veterans who might have been exposed to harmful DU conditions, and, specifically, how is this information relayed; (v) can CF members or veterans who might have been exposed to harmful DU conditions ask to be screened for DU exposure, if not, why not, and, if so, (i) what procedure do they follow, (ii) who does the testing, (iii) what is the cost of the testing; (w) what are the potential health effects from (i) external exposure to DU, for both low and high dosages, in both the short term and the long term, and (ii) internal exposure to DU, for both low and high dosages, in both the short term and the long term; (x) what, if any, CF members or veterans have applied for compensation associated with DU exposure during military service, specifying (i) the number of requests, (ii) whether compensation was awarded, (iii) whether compensation is pending, (iv) whether compensation is in appeal, (v) how many appeals have been made; (y) have any of DND’s medical or surgical members ever identified a possible link between a CF member’s service or a veteran’s service, exposure to DU, and particular health effects, and, if so, (i) how many times has such a possible link been made by DND’s medical or surgical members, (ii) what follow-up occurred as a result of any identified possible linkages; and (z) does the government have plans to convene a working group to review the latest research on hazardous materials exposure, including, but not limited to, exposure to DU, and possible health effects and, if so, (i) what is the planned scope of the review, (ii) who is to convene the working group, (iii) how are experts to be chosen, (iv) how are conflicts of interest to be avoided and declared, (vi) what is the timeline for the review and the review’s milestones?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 12--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), the liberation treatment, and multiple sclerosis (MS): (a) what consensus documents have been published regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, (i) by whom, (ii) on what dates, (iii) what were the recommendations, (iv) were they reviewed by the August 26, 2010, meeting of the CIHR in collaboration with the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC); (b) why were Canadian members of the International Union of Phlebology (IUP), who were part of the consensus process regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, not consulted during the August 26 meeting of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); (c) what are the details of any plan the government has or is developing to collect evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, for example, through clinical trials or the creation of a registry; (d) what percentage of surgical procedures in Canada have been double-blind tested over the last 40 years and, for this percentage, (i) what is the risk of complication, (ii) what is considered an acceptable risk of complication, (iii) how do physicians judge acceptable risk and convey this risk to their patients, (iv) what actions do physicians take to reduce risk if the patient chooses to undertake the procedure; (e) when a medical treatment appears to be potentially effective, is its approval ever fast-tracked by the relevant Canadian authorities and, if so, (i) what are any examples of this in Canada over the last five years, (ii) has this ever happened with respect to MS, (iii) if so, who advocated for a fast-tracking and when, (iv) what process was followed to allow the treatment, (v) who made the decision to proceed, (vi) why was fast-tracking deemed necessary, (vii) what were the known risks at the time of the request, (viii) what, if any, negative impacts resulted; (f) what are the reasons for the length of time it has taken the relevant Canadian authorities to implement clinical trials or to develop a registry; (g) why did no member of the August 26 group declare any conflicts of interest, either real or perceived; (h) how many liberation procedures did the August 26 group estimate have been undertaken, (i) which countries were undertaking the procedure, (ii) to which countries were Canadians travelling, (iii) were the practitioners considered to be sufficiently trained, (iv) were the procedures in these countries found to be safe;
(i) which people, labs and operating theatres had undertaken the diagnosis or treatment of CCSVI in Canada prior to the August 26 meeting; (j) why did the August 26 meeting not include Canadian experts in the imaging or treatment of CCSVI and for what reasons was Dr. Sandy McDonald not included as a participant; (k) why did the August 26 meeting not include international experts in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, data presented at international scientific conferences or site visits to labs and operating theatres, which were or had been undertaking diagnosis or treatment; (l) what is a comprehensive explanation of why the inclusion of CCSVI and liberation experts might have biased the sample of the August 26 group and whether such selection is an established practice at all CIHR meetings; (m) what are all the names of the group members who had spoken out against diagnosis or treatment of CCSVI or the liberation procedure prior to the August 26 meeting, what were the details of their positions, and what are their publically-available comments on the matter; (n) who were all the members of the August 26 group and, for each member, what were his or her stated or declared conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest; (o) what was the August 26 group’s assessment of and comments concerning all reviewed published papers, including both positive and negative observations; (p) did the August 26 group find it unusual that two of the reviewed papers had been accepted for publication in only six weeks, (i) did the group review whether this is a common practice in medicine, (ii) did the group consider how and why this might happen, (iii) did the group explore the expertise of those writing the papers, their experience, how their results compared with those of Dr.Zamboni and, if so, (iv) what were the group's findings for questions posed in (iii); (q) which neurologists, present at the August 26 meeting, had followed MS patients who were diagnosed with CCSVI and who had been treated for the condition, (i) how had neurologists followed them (e.g., appointment, EDSS score/another scale, MRI, neurological exam, etc.), (ii) what, if any, evidence did they present of patients' progress following the liberation procedure; (r) did the August 26 group find the reversal in the MSSC's position, who was part of the greater group, unusual, (i) did the group investigate or consider the reasons for this change in position and, if so, (ii) what observations did it make or conclusions did it come to regarding the reversal;
(s) did the August 26 group estimate how its decision might impact Canadian MS patients, including (i) impacts on their mental health and how this might impact their disease, (ii) the number of Canadian MS patients who might feel forced to seek help outside Canada, (iii) how air travel, a compromised vascular system, recent surgery, and lack of follow-up in Canada might impact their disease and, if so, (iv) what are the results of those estimations; (t) what consensus documents are forthcoming, (i) by whom, (ii) when will they be published; (u) what is the work plan for the new expert working group which met for the first time on November 23, 2010, (i) who are the panellists, what are their qualifications and what is their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, (ii) how were the panellists chosen and by whom, (iii) what is the group’s mandate and how was it derived, (iv) what is the schedule of meetings, (v) what is the timeline for the group’s work, (vi) what evidence will be reviewed to reach any decision about possible clinical trials, registry, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up care, etc.; (v) what was the agenda for the November 23 meeting of the expert working group, (i) what abstracts, documents, and presentations were reviewed, (ii) which Canadian and international experts, with experience in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, were consulted, (iii) what Canadian and international unpublished data were explored, (iv) what Canadian and international labs or operating theatres were reviewed and visited; (w) for what reasons is the new group going to analyze interim and final results from seven studies funded by the Canadian and US MS Societies and why are these studies considered more worthwhile cases for analysis than other studies already completed; (x) when will the November 23 expert panel declare and post any conflicts of interest, following the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) guide, on the CIHR website to eliminate the possibility of real or perceived conflicts; and (y) further to assurances made by the President of CIHR, Dr. Alain Beaudet, to the Subcommittee on Neurological Diseases on December 7, 2010, that MS patients who have had the liberation procedure would have follow-up, what are the details of how that follow-up will occur, specifically, (i) how will “a message be sent”, by whom, to whom, by when and what will the message be, (ii) specifically, will all patients who travel or travelled outside Canada be assured that their doctors will see them, that appointments will not be cancelled, that tests will not be cancelled, that they will have access to recommended prescriptions, that they will not lose their long-term care and that they will not be berated for making the decision to have liberation, (iii) how will this be enforced, (iv) what action should MS patients take if they are denied care, (v) to whom should they report a denial of care, (vi) what are the consequences for a physician or health practitioner or organization who delivers care but fails to provide follow-up care, (vii) will follow-up include ultrasound or MRI to image the veins of MS patients and, if so, how often will these imaging procedures occur and who will pay for them?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 13--
Ms. Olivia Chow:
With regard to the Champlain Bridge in Montreal: (a) what is the volume of correspondence in which a new bridge is requested or complaints are made about traffic congestion as a result of the maintenance and repair of the bridge as received by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, or Transport Canada from (i) individuals, (ii) organizations, (iii) elected representatives; (b) what is the total number of petition signatures received from individuals requesting the construction of a new bridge; (c) what are the names and addresses of the organizations that submitted correspondence as per (a)(ii); and (d) what is the government's reason for not funding the replacement of the Champlain Bridge?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 14--
Ms. Olivia Chow:
With regard to infrastructure project applications made under Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) what is the total number of project applications approved, broken down (i) by municipality, (ii) by electoral district in each municipality; (b) what is the total number of project applications rejected, broken down (i) by municipality, (ii) by electoral district in each municipality; and (c) broken down by municipality, what project applications were rejected and, for each, what was (i) the reason for the rejection, (ii) the amount of funding requested, (iii) the electoral district in which the project would have been completed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 17--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Small Craft Harbours Program and the $3.2 million announced on April 23, 2010, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to improve small craft harbours in Prince Edward Island: (a) how much of the $3.2 million was spent in fiscal year 2010-2011; (b) how much was identified to be spent in 2010-2011; (c) where was the money spent; and (d) how much money was spent on each harbour?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 18--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With respect to the Investment Canada Act and foreign corporate takeovers of Canadian companies: (a) on an annual and monthly basis from January 1, 1993 to December 31, 2010, how many takeovers were (i) approved, (ii) rejected; (b) for each takeover, what was the aggregate value of acquisition (i) federally, on an annual and monthly basis, (ii) by province, on an annual and monthly basis; (c) distributed federally, on an annual and monthly basis, and by province, on an annual and monthly basis, what are the takeovers, further distributed by the industry sectors (i) resources, (ii) manufacturing, (iii) wholesale and retail trades, (iv) business and service industries, (v) other; (d) in which year since January 1, 1993, did the most foreign takeovers of Canadian companies occur; (e) what is the current position of the government on foreign takeovers; (f) has the Investment Canada Act mandate changed since it was created and, if so, when and how, specifying the details of all amendments to the mandate; (g) in regard to takeovers approved between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 2010, what are the number of jobs affected by these takeovers as submitted by the investors as part of the application for review; (h) how many times has the Competition Policy Review Panel met on an annual and monthly basis, and broken down federally and by province, since its creation; (i) what changes to the Investment Canada Act has the Competition Policy Review Panel recommended; and (j) what other actions have been taken by the government to review the Competition Act and Investment Canada Act?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 22--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s presence at a National Hockey League finals game in Boston: (a) what was the total cost of the trip; (b) how much did the flight cost; (c) how many staff members, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and public servants accompanied the Prime Minister; (d) which departments paid the travel costs; (e) what were the total hospitality expenses incurred; (f) what organization or person invited the Prime Minister to the game; (g) what are the names of the public servants and staff members from the Prime Minister’s Office that accompanied the Prime Minister on this trip; (h) how much did on-site security cost; and (i) who paid for the tickets?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 25--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to bonuses granted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for each of fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, how many bonuses were dispersed and what were the amounts of these bonuses, broken down by: (a) fiscal year; (b) individual personnel; (c) region; and (d) departmental division?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 26--
Hon. John McCallum:
With respect to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the government’s commitment of $2.85 billion over 5 years for the Muskoka Initiative: (a) for each project or program that qualifies for the renewed $1.75 billion in existing funding, (i) what is its name and objective, (ii) what is the total federal funding commitment, (iii) what is the timeframe for the project or program; (b) for each program or project that qualifies for the new $1.1 billion in funding announced on February 1, 2011, (i) what is its name and objective, (ii) what is the total federal funding commitment, (iii) what is the timeframe for the project or program; (c) for each of the bilateral, multilateral and partnership branches, (i) which partner and country is receiving funding, (ii) how much funding is each partner and country receiving; and (d) what plans does the government have to inform Parliament and the public regarding this spending?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 27--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to departmental spending from 2006 to present, what were the total costs of rentals and purchases of individual staging, lighting and audio equipment, and production and assorted technical costs for all government announcements and public events?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 29--
Mr. Claude Gravelle:
What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Nickel Belt, specifying each (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 30--
Mr. Claude Gravelle:
With regard to grants and contributions applications to federal economic development agencies since April 1, 2010, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 31--
Mr. Claude Gravelle:
With regard to the operating budget freeze at federal economic development agencies: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid off as of April 1, 2011; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees have been hired since April 1, 2011; and (e) what programs will be subject to funding cuts as of April 1, 2011?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 33--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to government funding within the constituency of Guelph: (a) what was the total amount offunding originally announced, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to andincluding fiscal year 2010-2011, specifying for each announcement (i) the department or agencyresponsible for the funding, (ii) the program or initiative from which the funding came, (iii) the project name, (iv) the total value of the project; (b) for each announcement identified in (a) what was, (i) the total amount delivered, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to and including fiscal year 2010-2011, (ii) the department or agency responsible for the delivered funding, (iii) the program or initiative from whichthe delivered funding came, (iv) the project name, (v) the total value of the project; and (c) broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to and including fiscalyear 2010-2011, in each case where the final, total amount delivered, as specified in (b), was different from the funding amount announced, as specified in (a), what was the reason for this discrepancy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 34--
Ms. Olivia Chow:
With regard to infrastructure funding requests since 2006, broken down by infrastructure funding program, including but not limited to the Public Transit Fund, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, the Border Infrastructure Fund, the Infrastructure Canada Program, the Green Infrastructure Fund, and the Building Canada Fund: (a) how many applications for funding have been received; (b) how many applications have been rejected; (c) what is each application that has been rejected, including the date of application; (d) for applications identified in (c), what was the reason for rejection; (e) for applications identified in (c), what was the electoral district of the proposed project; and (f) how many applications are pending decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 35--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to government decentralization: (a) does the government have any information on proposals prepared since 2006 on the relocation, from the National Capital area to other regions of Canada, of (i) government departments or parts thereof, (ii) agencies, (iii) Crown corporations; and (b) does the government have any information on assessments completed since 2006 on which of the following entities could be relocated from the National Capital area to other regions of Canada, namely, (i) government departments or parts thereof, (ii) agencies, (iii) Crown corporations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 36--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to employment in the federal public service: (a) for the period of January 1, 2005, to May 31, 2011, (i) how many people were hired by the federal public service, (ii) how many casual employees were hired by the federal public service, (iii) how many term employees were hired by the federal public service, (iv) how many indeterminate employees were hired by the federal public service, (vi) how many applications for priority employment appointments in the federal public service were submitted by qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces, (vii) how many qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces have received a priority employment appointment, (viii) how many qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces were still on the priority employment appointment list when their eligibility period expired; (b) for the period of 2005 to the present, how many qualified medically released Canadian Forces veterans were hired by each department; and (c) what measures are being taken to extend the priority employment appointments program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 37--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the statements by the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment, entitled “Canada’s Green Budget 2009” and “Minister Prentice Highlights the Environment in 2010 Budget”: (a) how many applications were submitted under the 2009 $1 billion investment in clean energy research, development and demonstration projects, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the applicant and in what sector does the applicant work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what were the projected outcomes, (iv) what was the projected return on investment; (b) what, in detail, are all of the clean energy research development and demonstration projects awarded funds through the 2009 $1 billion investment, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the recipient of the funds and in what sector does the recipient work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what was the amount of funding awarded, (iv) what were the projected outcomes, (v) what was the projected return on investment, (vi) has the project been started, is it in progress, or has it been completed, (vii) what, if any, findings, publications, contracts, etc., have resulted from the project, (viii) in what geographic area was the project located; (c) what monies of the 2009 $1 billion investment for clean energy research development and demonstration projects have been spent, (i) what monies remain available, (ii) what, if any, advertising did or does the government undertake to promote the program, (iii) what, if any, costs are associated with any advertising of the program; (d) how many project applications were submitted under the 2009 $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the applicant and in what sector does the applicant work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what were the projected outcomes, (iv) what was the projected return on investment; (e) how many projects were awarded funding through the $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the recipient of the funds and in what sector does the recipient work, (ii) what was the amount of funding awarded, (iii) what were the projected outcomes in terms of reductions in emissions, waste, or other environmental payoffs, (iv) what was the projected return on investment, (v) has the project been started, is it in progress, or has it been completed, (vi) what, if any, findings, publications, contracts, or other significant results have been produced as a result of the project; (f) how many retrofits were undertaken under the 2009 $300 million eco-ENERGY Retrofit program, (i) what was the average cost of a retrofit, (ii) what was the average income of the family or individual undertaking a retrofit, (iii) what was the average household savings on energy, (iv) what was the average household savings in terms of money spent on energy annually, (v) what is the estimated savings to the environment each year, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs); (g) what specific projects were undertaken to maintain federal laboratories for $250 million in 2009, (i) why did the government identify these projects as investments in the environment, (ii) what laboratories benefitted, and what was the investment per lab, (iii) what specific laboratories need maintenance or further maintenance; (h) what specific projects, by station, were undertaken or are being undertaken under the $85 million for key Arctic research stations, why did the government identify these projects as investments in the environment, and, for each project identified, (i) what was the investment, (ii) what is the life expectancy of the investment, (iii) is further work needed, (iv) what projects does the government know still require funding; (i) what progress has been made to date on the $2 million investment in a feasibility study for a world-class Arctic research station, (i) what was the mandate of the feasibility study, (ii) what was its start date, key milestones, and end date, (iii) what, if any, results are available; (j) what are all federal contaminated sites across Canada, and, for each contaminated site identified, (i) where specifically is the site located, (ii) has the site had an environmental assessment (iii) if so, what are the main contaminants at the site, what is the projected cost of remediation, (iv) if not, what is the projected cost of an environmental assessment and the time required for that assessment; (k) is there a priority list for addressing contaminated sites listed in (j), and if so, (i) in what order do the sites appear on that list, (ii) what methodology is used to establish priority, (iii) who undertakes any priority assessments, what are their expertise, and how are experts chosen; (l) how much of the $80.5 million set aside for assessment of federal contaminated sites has been spent to date and what, if any, monies are remaining, (i) how many assessments have been started, are in progress, or have been completed to date, (ii) what are the findings for any completed assessment in terms of the environmental contamination, any threats to human health, and the projected cost of remediation, (iii) how many jobs have been created to date; (m) how much of the $165 million set aside for remediation of federal contaminated sites has been spent to date and what, if any, monies are remaining, (i) what remediation projects are started, are in progress, or have been completed to date, (ii) what are the findings for any completed remediation in terms of reducing environmental contamination and any threats to human health, (iii) what is the cost or projected cost of all remediation projects identified in (m)(i), (iv) how many jobs have been created to date; (n) what specific national parks projects have been undertaken with the $75 million earmarked in 2009, and, for each project identified, (i) what is the park’s name, (ii) what is its location, (iii) what is the total investment, (iv) what is a description of the project; (o) what, if any, progress has the government made on its 2009 $10 million investment in annual reporting of key environmental indicators such as clean air, clean water and GHG emissions, (i) what system was in place for reporting each, (ii) what, if any, system is now in place, (iii) when will the government make use of improvements in data resulting from this investment in its reports; (p) what, if any, progress has the government made on its 2010 $18.4 million investment to enhance the tracking of environmental data through the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators program, (i) what specific projects does the government plan to undertake with the money and, for each project identified, (ii) how much money will be spent, (iii) how will monies spent improve environmental reporting, (iv) when will the government use improvements in its reports; (q) what, if any, action has been taken on the 2010 $100 million Next Generation Renewable Power Initiative; (r) what, if any, consultation regarding environmental assessments has taken place with Aboriginal peoples in 2010, (i) identify all projects that affect Aboriginal communities, (ii) on which of the identified projects in (r)(i) have Aboriginal peoples been consulted to date; (s) how much of the $2.8 million earmarked for consultations with Aboriginal communities has been spent and how much is still available; (t) what are all contaminated Great Lake sites and where specifically is each site located, (i) what is a ranking of these contaminated sites, (ii) what is the method used to determine levels of contamination, (iii) what is the scale used to compare levels of contamination, (iv) what is the government’s definition of “most degraded”, (v) what are all “most degraded” sites, (vi) for each site identified in (t)(v), what is a description of the contamination and what is the cost of the remediation; and (u) what specifically is the $16 million ear-marked for to clean up the “most-degraded” Great Lakes sites, what monies have been spent to date, on what specific projects, and what is the projected return on investment in terms of the environment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 39--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the recent changes in the way with which Service Canada community outreach offices' services will be delivered: (a) what is the rationale for changing the way in which Service Canada has been operating across Canada; (b) how much money will be saved through these changes; (c) how many Service Canada community offices will be closed because of this decision; (d) how many people will lose their jobs as a result of this decision; and (e) what are the supposed benefits of such changes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 40--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the way with which Service Canada will now be delivering services and the increased emphasis on accessing government services via the Internet: (a) what is the government's plan to address rural Canadians' lack of access to basic Internet; (b) what is the government's plan to ensure that rural Canadians who have no access to an Internet connection can access government programs and services in a timely manner; and (c) what is the government's plan to ensure that Canadians are technologically literate and capable of using the Internet to access essential government services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 41--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With respect to government spending in the constituency of Random—Burin—St. George's, what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, itemized according to: (a) the date the money was received in the riding; (b) the dollar amount of the expenditure; (c) the program from which the funding came; (d) the ministry responsible; and (e) the designated recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 42--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the 2010 round of strategic reviews described and implemented in Budget 2011, specifically for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Marine Atlantic and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what changes does the government intend to implement in order to make the delivery of its programs and services more effective and efficient; (b) what is the rationale for these changes; (c) what are the projected savings; and (d) what are the projected staffing changes to full-time labour, part-time labour and contract labour as a result of the government's changes to the ways it delivers programs and services, broken down by (i) department, (ii) change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 43--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to the departmental name change of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), announced on May 18, 2011, and effective June 13, 2011: (a) what is the government's rationale for the name change, specifically the rationale for (i) replacing “Indian Affairs” with “Aboriginal Affairs”, (ii) replacing “Northern Affairs” with “Northern Development”; (b) did a consultation process take place on the implications of the name change, and, if so, (i) with which individuals and organizations, (ii) on which dates, (iii) what recommendations resulted from these consultations; (c) what is the expected impact on First Nation inherent and treaty rights; (d) does the government plan to commit additional resources to programs for Inuit, Métis, non-status Indians and urban Aboriginals; and (e) what is the expected cost of implementing the name change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 45--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to the government’s investments in on-reserve housing for First Nations: (a) what is the total annual expenditure on new on-reserve housing construction; (b) what is the total annual expenditure on repair of existing on-reserve housing; (c) which government departments or agencies provide investments in this area; (d) what is the government’s statutory responsibility for on-reserve housing; (e) what was the annual expenditure in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, distributed by department and program activity; and (f) what is the estimated annual expenditure in fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, distributed by department and program activity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 47--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to Western Economic Diversification (WED): (a) what was the total dollar value of repayable contributions and of repayable portions of partially-repayable contributions, made during fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; (b) what is the total dollar amount repaid from contributions identified in (a); (c) what was the total value of non-repayable contributions made during fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; (d) for each non-repayable contribution made in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (i) which organization or individual received the contribution, (ii) what was the total dollar amount received, (iii) for what purpose was the contribution granted, (iv) who gave final approval for the contribution; (e) how many contracts were issued by WED in fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; and (f) for each contract issued in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (i) which organization or individual received the contract, (ii) was the contract tendered or sole-sourced, (iii) if the contract was sole-sourced, why, (iv) if the contract was sole-sourced, who gave final approval, (v) what was the total dollar amount for each contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 48--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to Western Economic Diversification (WED): (a) what is the total number of applications for green innovation and clean technology projects approved in fiscal year (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; (b) which organization or individual received funding for each project in (a); (c) what dollar amount of funding was granted to each project in (a); (d) what was the total dollar amount of funding granted by WED to projects in (a) in fiscal year (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; (e) for each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, what percentage of WED’s total expenses is comprised by the amount specified in the answers to (d)(i), (d)(ii), (d)(iii) and (d)(iv), respectively; (f) what is the total number of applications for green innovation and clean technology projects rejected in fiscal year (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; and (g) for each project application in (f), what was (i) the dollar amount of funding requested, (ii) the reason for the rejection?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 49--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to oil tanker spills on Canada’s coasts: (a) how many oil spills occurred from 1980 to 2011; and (b) for each spill that occurred during this time period, (i) where was the spill located, (ii) from what type of vessel did the spill originate, (iii) what was the carrying capacity of the vessel, (iv) how many cubic litres or barrels of oil was spilled, (v) what was the grade of the oil product spilled, (vi) what measures did the government take to respond to the spill, (vii) what measures did the government take to clean up the spill, (viii) how long did it take to execute (b)(vi) and (b)(vii), (ix) what was the total cost of (b)(vi) and (b)(vii), (x) if applicable, for what dollar amount or percentage of the costs attributed to (b)(vi) and (b)(vii) was the operating company of the vessel held liable, (xi) if applicable, what was the total dollar amount collected from the operating company for (b)(vi) and (b)(vii)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 50--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to temporary resident visas: (a) for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, how many applications for temporary resident visas were received by the Canadian offices in (i) Beijing, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) Shanghai, (iv) New Delhi, (v) Mumbai, (vi) Chandigardh, (vii) Jakarta, (viii) Seoul, (ix) Kuala Lumpur, (x) Islamabad, (xi) Manila, (xii) Singapore, (xiii) Colombo, (xiv) Bangkok, (xv) Ho Chi Minh City, (xvi) Dhaka, (xvii) Mexico City, (xviii) Guadalajara, (xvix) Monterray, (xx) Prague; and (b) how many applications were issued by the offices listed in (a) for fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 52--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to Industry Canada and, more specifically, funding that has been provided through the department for broadband initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) broken down by fiscal year, from 2007-2008 to date, (i) what specific amounts of funding have been approved for projects and under what program was the funding approved, (ii) what are the specific details of each project, (iii) when was the funding approved, (iv) how much funding was requested in the application, (v) who were the applicants for each project; (b) broken down by fiscal year, from 2007-2008 to date, (i) how many applications were submitted that did not receive funding, (ii) what were the individual requested amounts for each application, (iii) who were the applicants for each specific application; and (c) broken down by fiscal year, from 2007-2008 to date, what were the total amounts of funding provided for broadband projects in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 53--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to Transport Canada and, more specifically, fees that have been collected from vessel owners, vessel operators and all marine traffic users as a result of access or entry to any port located geographically in Placentia Bay, for fiscal years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) what fees have been paid to the government or any department, federal corporation or agency; and (b) what has been the reason or purpose of these collected fees and what are the specific amounts for each reason or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 55--
Mrs. Maria Mourani:
With regard to the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), the contract for which was awarded to Brookfield Relocation Services in 2009, and for the period from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011: (a) how many relocation files were opened during this period; (b) what is the number of relocation files for each of the various departments and agencies, as well as the tenant-owner breakdown; and (c) for employee transfers involving the sale of property, what are the names of the “listing” real estate agents or brokers and their agencies?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 60--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With respect to benefits paid to Deputy Ministers (DM) of government departments, broken down both by individual and by department, what is the amount of benefits paid to DMs, including, but not limited to: (a) club memberships or membership discounts for personal recreation or socializing purposes, such as fitness clubs, golf clubs or social clubs; (b) season tickets to cultural or sporting events; (c) access to private health clinics and medical services outside those provided by provincial healthcare systems or by the employer's group insured benefit plans; and (d) professional advisory services for personal matters, such as financial, tax or estate planning?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 61--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and its programs and initiatives related to homelessness and affordable housing: (a) how much funding is dedicated to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP); (b) what is the status of the RRAP with regard to program delivery for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014; (c) what is the status of any agreements with the provinces with regard to delivery of the RRAP, and, if no agreements are in place, what is the status of any negotiations with the provinces with regard to delivery of the RRAP; (d) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, how many applications for funding under the RRAP have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) rejected; (e) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, (i) what are all applications approved for funding under the RRAP, including the amount of funding approved, (ii) what are all applications denied funding under the RRAP, including the amount of funding requested and the reason for the rejection; (f) how much funding is dedicated to the Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI); (g) what is the status of the AHI with regard to program delivery for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014; (h) what is the status of any agreements with the provinces, with regard to delivery of the AHI, and, if no agreements are in place, what is the status of any negotiations with the provinces with regard to delivery of the AHI; (i) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, how many applications for funding under the AHI have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) rejected; (j) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, (i) what are all applications approved for funding under the AHI, including the amount of funding approved, (ii) what are all applications denied funding under the AHI, including the amount of funding requested and the reason for rejection; (k) how much funding is dedicated to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS); (l) what is the status of the HPS with regard to program delivery for the fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014; (m) what is the status of any agreements with the provinces, with regard to delivery of the HPS, and, if no agreements are in place, what is the status of any negotiations with the provinces with regards to delivery of the HPS; (n) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, how many applications for funding under the HPS have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) rejected; (o) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, (i) what are all applications approved for funding under the HPS, including the amount of funding approved, (ii) what are all applications denied funding under the HPS, including the amount of funding requested and the reason for rejection; (p) broken down by year and by type of funding, since 2006, how many new units of affordable housing have been built using CMHC funding; (q) how many people are currently on waiting lists for affordable housing, broken down by (i) province, (ii) municipality; and (r) since 2006, what was the average number of people on a waiting list for affordable housing, broken down (i) by province and year, (ii) by municipality and year?
Response
(Returnn tabled)

Question No. 63--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to the Georgetown South rail line: (a) what is the total volume of correspondence received by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and by departments for which the minister is responsible calling for the electrification of the rail line from (i) individuals, (ii) organizations, (iii) elected officials; (b) what is the total number of petition signatures received by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and by departments for which the minister is responsible calling for the electrification of the rail line; (c) what are the names and addresses of all organizations in (a); (d) since 2006, what reports has the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the departments for which the minister is responsible produced or received regarding (i) the health impacts of diesel trains in urban centres, (ii) the benefits of electrification of urban rail, (iii) the noise pollution of diesel trains; (e) what, if any, federal funding has been provided for the Georgetown South rail line; (f) if federal funding was provided for the Georgetown South rail line, were any conditions put in place requiring the electrification of the rail line; and (g) what is the government's position on making the electrification of urban rail lines a condition for receiving federal funding for transit projects contained within an urban area?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 64--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regard to the situation in Haiti following the recent earthquake: (a) at what meetings has the government participated where there were discussions concerning the promotion of effective leadership and good governance in Haiti; (b) what measures has the government undertaken to ensure that the money pledged to Haiti is getting delivered on the ground; (c) has the government looked into any other assistance programs besides direct economic aid to help the people of Haiti; and (d) what measures has the government taken to reopen the embassy in Haiti and restore consular services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 65--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regard to consular services: (a) what briefing notes has the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade received or produced regarding consular services in response to recent events in the Arab World Middle East and Northern Africa; (b) what measures has the government taken to ensure the safety of Canadians living abroad in response to recent events in the Middle East and Northern Africa; (c) what is the projected budget for consular services abroad over the next 3 years; (d) what impact will any changes in the projected budget for consular services have on the number of personnel working in consular affairs outside of Canada; and (e) what impact will any changes in the projected budget for consular services have on the number of personnel working in consular affairs inside Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 67--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to the New Veterans Charter, the tax-free, lump-sum Disability Award, and the tax-free, lump-sum Death Benefit, between April 2005 and June 2011: (a) how many recipients of the lump-sum Disability Award or the Death Benefit filed a complaint with the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) about either benefit; (b) how many Disability Award or Death Benefit files have been forwarded to the Deputy Minister or Minister of Veterans Affairs' attention; (c) what was the nature of the problems associated with each case forwarded to the Minister in (b); (d) after receiving a lump-sum payment, how many recipients or their dependants requested additional funds; (e) has VAC experienced cost savings associated with the granting of the lump-sum Disability Award and Death Benefit, as compared to other longer-term assistance measures such as, but not limited to, the disability pension and health care benefits; (f) has VAC reviewed or evaluated the lump-sum Disability Award and Death Benefit programs; and (g) what findings or conclusions have been made by any reviews or evaluations in (f)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 69--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to Agent Orange and Canadian veterans trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange spraying at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown: (a) what is the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, on the defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit (i) from July 1, 2005, to June 1, 2011, (ii) from March 5, 2010, to June 1, 2011; (b) what is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit (i) from July 1, 2005, to June 1, 2011, (ii) from March 5, 2010, to June 1, 2011; and (c) what is the total amount of money spent all federal departments and agencies, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, on the defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit (i) from January 1, 2009, to June 1, 2011, (ii) from March 5, 2010, to June 1, 2011?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 70--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Public Health Agency of Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 72--
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:
With regard to public opinion polling across all governmental departments since January 1, 2011: (a) how many polls were conducted by each department; and (b) for each poll, what (i) was the subject matter of the poll, (ii) questions were asked, (iii) was the sample size, (iv) was the period of time in which the poll was conducted, (v) were the results, (vi) was the department for which the poll was conducted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 74--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 75--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Health Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 78--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With respect to the national crime prevention strategy and the youth gang prevention fund: (a) how much money has been spent on each of these programs in each fiscal year since 2005-2006; and (b) how much money has been spent on advertising for each of these programs in each fiscal year since 2005-2006?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 79--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With respect to the safety management systems (SMS) put in place by airlines since 2005, and following the appearance of the Chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on February 21, 2007: (a) how many SMS inspections were carried out by Transport Canada inspectors, and on which airlines; (b) for each inspection carried out by Transport Canada, was the airline in compliance with the security regulations in place at the time of inspection; (c) for each inspection that was completed on an airline that was not in compliance with the regulations, what measures were taken by the airline to ensure that compliance was achieved; (d) did Transport Canada verify Aveos SMS compliance and, if yes, when will its report be concluded; and (e) does Transport Canada intend to review the SMS regulations that airlines are subject to in the near future?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 81--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to the sale of Statistics Canada data and products, how much revenue external to Government of Canada sources did Statistics Canada make in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 from the sale of products and services, broken down by Census-related and non-Census-related products and services, excluding special surveys?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 82--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regard to the rising costs of the F-35 stealth fighter jets and the fact that United States officials have publicly questioned the progress and efficacy of the F-35s: (a) in what meetings with the United States has the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) or the Department of National Defence (DND) participated at which there were discussions of the increasing cost of the jets from the initial $9 billion assessment to approximately $21 billion; (b) in what meetings with the United States has DFAIT or DND participated at which there were discussions about the impact that production delays surrounding the F-35s would have on Canada’s timeline to receive the jets and the amount that the jets will cost; and (c) what is the most recent projected cost for Canada’s purchase of the F-35 jets?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 84--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to staffing at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) what is the breakdown, expressed as a percentage of the total number of VAC staff, of VAC staff who work in (i) the departmental headquarters in Ottawa, (ii) the departmental headquarters in Charlottetown, (iii) regional offices across Canada, (iv) sub-regional offices across Canada, (v) district offices across Canada; (b) what are the names and titles of departmental staff at the EX level and above in the Head Office in Ottawa; (c) what is the authorized number of employees on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB); and (d) what is the breakdown of the location of the VRAB members and employees in the various regional and district offices of VAC?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 91--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to oil spill clean-ups in Northern Arctic waters: (a) what dispersants does the government use or have plans to use in this process; (b) what is the quantity of the government’s stocks of these dispersants; (c) what tests has the government conducted concerning the use of these dispersants in the clean-up of an Arctic oil spill; (d) what tests has the government conducted concerning the effects of these dispersants on (i) the Arctic environment, (ii) Arctic wildlife; (e) when and by whom were the tests in (c) and (d) conducted; (f) what were the costs of the tests in (c) and (d); (g) does the government have a regimen in place for the ongoing evaluation of dispersants to be used in Arctic spills; (h) how are the dispersants which the government evaluates graded in terms of effectiveness for use in the Arctic; (i) in the event of such an occurrence, does the government have plans to use a dispersant to break up a spill at the source of the leak in Arctic waters; (j) what is the government’s assessment of the effectiveness of the use of dispersants at the source of a spill in the clean-up process; and (k) what, if any, tests has the government conducted to develop a strategy for using dispersants to break up spills at the source, and what are the costs for these tests?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 94--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 95--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Status of Women Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 96--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to Canadian International Development Agency funding since 2009, what is the name of every organization that has not had its funding renewed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 98--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to the operating budget freeze at Western Economic Diversification Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 100--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 granted by Status of Women Canada since January 1, 2008, what are: (a) the names of the recipients; (b) the amounts of the grant or contribution; (c) the dates of the grant or contribution; (d) the dates of length of funding; and (e) the descriptions of the purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 105--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to the purchase of 65 F-35(A) fighter jets for future use in the Canadian Forces: (a) when and on how many occasions did the Department of National Defence (DND) submit a justification for “the legal authority to use an exception to competitive bidding”, as is required in section 3.15[a] of the Treasury Board Guideline; and (b) for each submission, referenced in the government’s response to part (a) of this question, that utilized the exception to competitive bidding found under section 3.15[a][iv] of the Treasury Board Guidelines, what justification is provided that would allow the government and DND to consider the F-35(A) as the only aircraft capable of meeting all of the department’s high-level mandatory requirements for this procurement project despite the department’s knowledge that the F-35(A) cannot meet the mandatory requirement pertaining to air-to-air refuelling?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 107--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the operations and management of Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI), what are the details of: (a) MAI’s (i) Corporate Plan 2004-2005 to 2009-2010, (ii) Corporate Plan 2005-2006 to 2010-2011, (iii) Corporate Plan 2006-2007 to 2011-2012, (iv) Corporate Plan 2007-2008 to 2012-2013, (v) Corporate Plan 2008-2009 to 2013-2014, (vi) Corporate Plan 2009-2010 to 2014-2015; (b) each of the respective Corporate Plan Summaries for each Five Year Corporate Plan identified in (a); (c) all Minutes of Meetings of the Board of Directors of MAI held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (d) all minutes, records or notes of Corporate Planning Sessions of the Board of Directors of MAI held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (e) all President’s Reports submitted to the Board of Directors of MAI between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (f) all Chief Executive Officer's (CEO) Reports to the Board of Directors of MAI submitted between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (g) all reports, minutes of meetings or record of meetings held between either the President, the CEO or the Board of Directors or any Committee of the Board of Directors with either the Minister of State (Transport) or the Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (h) all reports, minutes of meetings or record of meetings held between either the President, the CEO or the Board of Directors or any Committee of the Board of Directors and either the Deputy Minister of Transport Canada or any Assistant or Associate Deputy Minister of Transport Canada held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (i) all draft reports, findings, recommendations and conclusions forwarded to Transport Canada by the two firms, Fleetway Incorporated and Oceanic Consulting Corporation, which were contracted to provide input on various aspects of MAI’s fleet renewal deliberations, as referred to in the President’s Report to the Board of Directors of MAI on September 23, 2005; (j) the final reports, findings, recommendations and conclusions submitted to either MAI or to Transport Canada by each of the two firms, Fleetway Incorporated and Oceanic Consulting Corporation, whom were contracted by either MAI or Transport Canada to provide input on various aspects of MAI’s fleet renewal; (k) all responses made by MAI to Transport Canada regarding MAI’s position on each of the recommendations arising out of MAI’s Advisory Committee report chaired by Captain Sid Hynes, as was requested of MAI by the Deputy Minister of Transport Canada, along with any replies to these messages from the recipients; (l) all minutes, records and notes of the meeting or meetings held between officials of MAI and representatives of Canadian shipyards regarding MAI’s fleet renewal requirements and bidding opportunities of new vessels; (m) all minutes, records and notes prepared by management officials of MAI providing references to an analysis on the future fleet renewal to either the President of MAI, the CEO of MAI or to the members of the Board of Directors of MAI; (n) all minutes, records and notes including electronic messages prepared by Transport Canada officials for either the Minister of Transportation, Communities and Infrastructure or the Minister of State (Transport) or to members of their respective offices, regarding analysis and discussion of the future fleet renewal recommendations provided by Fleetway Incorporated and by Oceanic Consulting Corporation along with any replies to these messages from the recipients; (o) all minutes, records and notes including electronic messages prepared by Transport Canada to the Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities or to the Minister of State (Transport) or to members of their respective offices, pertaining to the motion passed by MAI’s Board of Directors that MAI’s fleet replacement program consist of four new vessels along with any replies to these messages from the recipients; (p) all costs incurred to re-position the MV Blue Puttees from MAI facilities to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the unveiling ceremony presided over by the Prime Minister on February 11, 2011; (q) all costs incurred by MAI in the re-position the MV Blue Puttees from MAI facilities to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for public display during the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador (HNL) Annual General Meeting and Convention held between February 24 to 27, 2011; (r) the cost of all public relations, advertising, marketing and promotion planning, preparation, activities and campaigns broken down by event or campaign incurred by or on behalf of MAI between April 1, 2010, and March 1, 2011; (s) any incident reports from events that occurred affecting the MV Blue Puttees while in transit to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the February 11, 2011, unveiling ceremony including the situation of listing of the vessel while enroute and the damage that occurred to both the St. John’s Port Authority docking facilities and to the MV Blue Puttees while docking in St. John’s for that event; and (t) any planned or potential labour force adjustment strategies or requirements within MAI expected or possible in the next three calendar years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 110--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the government’s use of random selection in selecting applicants for jobs in the Public Service: (a) why is this process used over other possible selection processes; and (b) does the government have any plans to eliminate the random selection process in the future?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 111--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and promotional items: (a) broken down by fiscal year, since 2006, what was the total amount spent on CMHC branded promotional items; (b) broken down by fiscal year, since 2006, what types of CMHC branded promotional items were purchased by the CMHC; (c) broken down by fiscal year, since 2006, what was the total amount spent on each type of CMHC branded promotional item; (d) broken down by fiscal year, since 2006, what was the total volume purchased of each type of CMHC branded promotional item; and (e) what is the current inventory level of each type of CMHC promotional item?
Response
(Return tabled)

*Question No. 21--
Ms. Elizabeth May :
With regard to the 2010 G8/G20 Summits in Ontario: (a) what was the chain of command relating to security; (b) what Canadian law enforcement and security forces were involved; (c) what international security experts or agencies were involved; and (d) did such agencies recommend kettling people at intersections?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-411-10 Chronic cerebrospinal venous ...8555-411-100 Status of Women Canada8555-411-105 F-35(A) fighter jets8555-411-107 Marine Atlantic Incorporated8555-411-11 Depleted uranium8555-411-110 Applicants to the Public Service8555-411-111 Canada Mortgage and Housing ...8555-411-12 Chronic cerebrospinal venous ...8555-411-13 Champlain Bridge8555-411-14 Economic Action Plan8555-411-17 Small Craft Harbours program