Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 6 of 6
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 773--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) animal transportation inspection system, and review of the animal transport regulations under Part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations: (a) what corrective actions are being taken in light of the apparent violations of the Health of Animals Regulations and CFIA inspectors’ apparent failure to respond to unacceptable treatment of animals, as recently suggested by images filmed at the Western Hog Exchange in Red Deer, Alberta (http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/hidden-camera-investigation-reveals-abuse-in-canadian-pork-transportation-system-1.2049011); (b) what is the status of draft amendments or proposals to the animal transport regulations under the Health of Animals Regulations, Part XII, and what is the Agency’s timeframe for publishing those proposed changes in Part I of the Canada Gazette; and (c) what measures will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food advise CFIA to take to ensure that Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) are dissuasive and specifically, is the Minister planning to significantly increase AMPs in order to ensure that they are dissuasive?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CFIA has taken immediate action with regard to the regulatory authority for which it is responsible upon learning of this situation.
To assess the state of compliance with humane transportation provisions of the Health of Animals Act, staff conducted humane transportation inspection blitzes. While the inspection team observed some minor health issues with transported animals, the district veterinarian concluded that the inspected loads were in compliance with the sections of the regulations that were assessed.
A team of subject matter specialists external to the region was tasked with conducting a review to determine whether federal rules were broken and if appropriate inspection actions were taken. The results of this review are pending and appropriate actions will be taken based on the review results.
To address any perceptions or concerns of regulatory capture, CFIA has increased inspector presence within the Western Hog Exchange barns. The increased inspection presence will continue until the results of this review are received and an action plan is in place.
CFIA management has met with inspection staff in the area to reinforce our values of courage, rigour and respect. The CFIA has also taken this opportunity to discuss with staff our ongoing expectation that animal welfare responsibilities be carried out in a compassionate and respectful manner.
With regard to (b), the CFIA is committed to updating Part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations, which pertains to the transportation of animals, and continues to work on the proposed amendment. There have been ongoing consultations with Canadian stakeholders and the CFIA is currently assessing feedback received.
With regard to (c), the Government of Canada is taking significant measures to implement appropriate penalties in the agricultural sector. Among others, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food introduced Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, which contains provisions that propose to amend the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, AAAMP. In the bill, clauses 114 to 116 aim at increasing monetary penalties for businesses from $2,000, minor violation, $10,000, serious violation, and $15,000, very serious violation, to $5,000, $15,000 and $25,000 respectively.
The government believes that this updated regime of penalties included in Bill C-18 will be dissuasive and encourage compliance from regulated parties in the sector. Unfortunately, the Liberal agricultural critic introduced an amendment during the consideration of this bill at committee stage to water down this updated regime. A majority of members of Parliament disagreed with this amendment and defeated the attempt by the Liberal agricultural critic to significantly lessen the impact of this provision.

Question No. 777--
Hon. John McKay:
With respect to the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Counsellor in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development: (a) is the Department currently conducting interviews to fill the role of CSR Counsellor within the office and, if so, (i) how many candidates have been interviewed by the Department, (ii) by what date does the Department expect to fill the role of CSR Counsellor; (b) how many staff are currently employed by the Department to administer the Office of the CSR Counsellor; and (c) including the cost of staff, office space rental, stationery and similar materials, hospitality, and any other expenses not mentioned above, what was the total cost of maintaining the Office of the CSR Counsellor during the period from October 2013 to October 2014?
Response
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on November 14, 2014, the government officially launched the selection process to appoint a new extractive sector CSR counsellor. The process commenced through notifications on the Canada Gazette and Governor in Council websites.
No candidates have yet been interviewed, as potential candidates had until December 1, 2014, to submit their applications to the Privy Council Office, assistant secretary of the cabinet.
It is not possible to indicate a precise date for the completion of the selection process; however, in light of the announcement on November 14 of the updated CSR strategy, Doing Business the Canadian Way, the government is moving to staff this important post as soon as possible.
With regard to (b), administration of the CSR counsellor’s office consists of three positions: the CSR counsellor, a senior adviser, and an administrative assistant.
With regard to (c), the total operating cost of maintaining the CSR counsellor’s office from October 2013 to October 2014 was $181,600.

Question No. 781--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the Canadian Space Agency: (a) why was the photograph of Canadarm 2, previously posted to the Agency's Tumblr accounts at “http://canadian-space-agency.tumblr.com/post/76666430256/csa-astronaut-jeremy-hansen-canadarm2-looks” and “http://agence-spatiale-canadienne.tumblr.com/post/76666430181/jeremy-hansen-asronaute-de-lasc-canadarm2”, modified to add the Canada wordmark; (b) who made these modifications to the photograph; (c) who requested or directed that the modifications be made; (d) when was that request or direction issued; (e) why was the Tumblr posting removed; (f) who removed the Tumblr posting; (g) who requested or directed that the Tumblr posting be removed; and (h) why was that request or direction issued?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the altered image was produced for an internal event celebrating the fifth anniversary of Canadarm2.
With regard to (b) to (d), in 2006, the Canadian Space Agency, CSA, employees made the modifications to the original photo, at their own initiative.
With regard to (e), as soon as the CSA was made aware of the situation, it took steps to remove the altered photo from its Tumblr account. The agency also contacted both Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, and the Privy Council Office, PCO, to have the altered image replaced with the original photo already available on the CSA’s website. The correct image has now been posted.
With regard to (f) to (g), the CSA’s communications and public affairs directorate.
With regard to (h), the altered photo was intended to be used for an internal event in 2006. As soon as the CSA was made aware of its error, it took steps to replace the photo with the original image available on the CSA website, including replacing it on the Tumblr website.

Question No. 785--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to the War Veterans Allowance (WVA) program: (a) how many Allied veterans have applied for the program since it was expanded in June 2009; (b) what are the criteria that Allied veterans must meet to be eligible for the WVA; (c) specifically, are Allied veterans required to be Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or living in Canada to be eligible; (d) how many applicants have been approved; (e) how many family members of Allied veterans have applied for the program since it was expanded in June 2009; (f) how many family members of Allied veterans have been approved to receive the benefit; (g) what is the total value of benefits approved for Allied veterans and their families since the WVA was expanded in June 2009; and (h) after submitting an application, what is the average wait-time for Allied veterans or their families to receive a benefit?
Response
Hon. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as of March 31, 2014, 2,356 Allied veterans have applied for the war veterans allowance program since it was expanded in June 2009.
With regard to (b), effective January 1, 2010, low-income Allied veterans of the Second World War and the Korean War who live in Canada have access to war veterans allowance and associated health benefits. These benefits include treatment benefits, the veterans independence program, long-term care as well as the assistance fund and funeral and burial assistance. To qualify for these benefits, Allied veterans must have served in a war zone during the Second World War or Korean War, lived in Canada prior to enlisting, or moved to Canada after the war and have lived here for at least 10 years and live in Canada now.
With regard to (c) Allied veterans do not have to be Canadian citizens or permanent residents as those terms are described in legislation administered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The War Veterans Allowance Act requires that an Allied veteran be a resident in Canada to apply for and receive the allowance.
With regard to (d) Of the 2,356 Allied veteran applications, 1,103 have been approved. This number does not include veterans’ survivors.
With regard to (e) As of March 31, 2014, 170 Allied veteran family members (survivors of veterans) have applied for the program since it was expanded in June 2009.
With regard to (f) Of the 170 applications by family members of Allied veterans, 66 have been approved to receive the benefit.
With regard to (g) As of March 31, 2014, the total expenditure for Allied veterans and their families, since the war veterans allowance program was expanded in June 2009, was $2.1 million.
With regard to (h) The average adjudication decision turnaround time for applicants is 47 days.

Question No. 791--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the operations of the RCMP in and around the Town of High River, Alberta, between June 20, 2013, and July 12, 2013 (“the High River operations”): (a) what are the definitions of “illegally stored firearms”, “carelessly stored firearms” and “unsafe storage” as accepted and enforced by the RCMP, (i) are there any circumstances under which these definitions are expanded or altered in such a way that it impacts the extent to which the RCMP can enforce them, (ii) if (i) is answered affirmatively, did any of these circumstances occur in the context of the High River operations, and in what way were these definitions thus altered; (b) what statutes and regulations, as enforced by the RCMP, regulate the storage of legally owned firearms, of all classifications, (i) are there any circumstances under which these statutes and or regulations are expanded or altered in such a way that it impacts the extent to which the RCMP can enforce them, (ii) if (i) is answered affirmatively, did any of these circumstances occur in the context of the High River operations, and in what way were the statutes and regulations in question thus altered; (c) what specific sections of RCMP training, procedural manuals, or other documentation governed the procedures that led to the seizure of legally stored firearms located by RCMP in residences during the High River operations; (d) what prior examples of large scale door-to-door searches by the RCMP that included the seizure of firearms from multiple residences informed the procedure for the seizure of legally stored firearms that occurred in the context of the High River operations; (e) what information was recorded by the RCMP regarding the location in each residence of the firearms that were seized and or secured by the RCMP in the course of the door-to-door searches of residences during the High River operations, (i) where is this information being kept, (ii) who has access to it, (iii) what was the purpose of recording this information; (f) in how many instances were legally stored firearms located in residences by RCMP in the context of the High River operations and not seized or secured by the RCMP; (g) was any information recorded regarding legally stored firearms in residences which were not seized and or secured by the RCMP in the context of the High River operations and, if so, (i) what are the details of the information recorded, (ii) who (including name, rank, and detachment) authorized the recording; (h) under what statutory or procedural authority was the RCMP operating when the firearms which were seized or secured by the RCMP during the course of the door-to-door searches of residences in the context of the High River operations were queried in the Canadian Police Information Centre database; (i) how many times has the Canadian Police Information Centre database been accessed by any members of the RCMP regarding (i) any residents of the Town of High River, Alberta, (ii) any firearms-license holders residing in and around the town of High River, Alberta; (j) what was the purpose of querying, in the Canadian Police Information Centre database, the firearms which had been seized or secured by the RCMP in the context of the High River operations, (i) what are the names, ranks, positions, units and detachments of the officer or officers who authorized this procedure, (ii) what other seized items were queried in the Canadian Police Information Centre database, (iii) if no other seized items were checked against the Canadian Police Information Centre database, why not, (iv) in how many instances did this process result in the identification of stolen weapons, (v) in how many instances did this process result in the identification of persons in possession of firearms that they were prohibited from possessing; (k) was the Canadian Police Information Center database accessed by any member or members of the RCMP regarding any residences which were linked with federal firearms-license holders, in and around the Town of High River, Alberta and, if so, (i) what information was accessed, (ii) why was the information accessed, (iii) on what specific dates was the information accessed, (iv) what are the names, ranks, positions, units and detachments of the RCMP officers or officer who authorized this procedure; and (l) was the restricted-firearms registry accessed at any point between June 20, 2013, and July 12, 2013, by any members of the RCMP regarding any residents of the Town of High River, Alberta, or regarding any restricted or prohibited firearms registered to persons residing in and around the Town of High River, Alberta and, if so, (i) what information from the restricted-firearms registry was sought by the RCMP, (ii) what was the purpose of accessing the restricted firearms registry at this time, (iii) what was the number of restricted or prohibited firearms identified in the restricted-firearms registry as being registered in and around the Town of High River, Alberta, (iv) how many such firearms were eventually seized by the RCMP, (v) what are the names, ranks, positions, units and detachments of the officers or officer who authorized this procedure?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to this question, the RCMP has provided the following assessment. There is an ongoing review of this matter by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
With regard to (a), the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code, and their supporting regulations, are used by the RCMP to determine storage requirements. With regard to (i), no. With regard to (ii), not applicable.
With regard to (b), there are two regulations that apply to the storage of firearms: the Storage, Display and Transportation of Firearms and Other Weapons by Businesses Regulations; and the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations. With regard to (i), no. With regard to (ii), not applicable.
With regard to (c) to (e) and (h) to (l), there is an ongoing review of this matter by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
With regard to (f) and (g), the RCMP’s data collection system does not capture this information.

Question No. 792--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the operations of the Canadian Armed Forces in and around the Town of High River, Alberta between June 20, 2013, and July 12, 2013: (a) what were the operational directives issued to the Canadian Armed Forces concerning their operations in conjunction with the RCMP, specifically with respect to (i) the door-to-door searches of residences, (ii) door-to-door searches of residences by forced entry, (iii) searches for any firearms in residences, (iv) collection of any firearms found while searching residences, (v) transportation of any firearms found while searching residences, (vi) recording of any information regarding firearms found while searching residences, (vii) recording of any information regarding residences in which firearms were located; (b) what operations were conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces in conjunction with the RCMP specifically with respect to (i) the door-to-door searches of residences, (ii) door-to-door searches of residences by forced entry, (iii) searches for any firearms in residences, (iv) collection of any firearms found while searching residences, (v) transportation of any firearms found while searching residences, (vi) recording of any information regarding firearms found while searching residences, (vii) recording of any information regarding residences in which firearms were located; (c) what requests were issued by the RCMP to the Canadian Armed Forces specifically with respect to (i) the door-to-door searches of residences, (ii) door-to-door searches of residences by forced entry, (iii) searches for any firearms in residences, (iv) collection of any firearms found while searching residences, (v) transportation of any firearms found while searching residences, (vi) recording of any information regarding firearms found while searching residences, (vii) recording of any information regarding residences in which firearms were located; (d) were any requests by the RCMP refused by the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, (i) what was the content of each request by the RCMP that was refused by the Canadian Armed Forces, (ii) on what date was each request made, (iii) what were the reasons for the refusal of each request; (e) what requests were issued by any government entities, including, but not limited to municipal, provincial and federal governments, to the Canadian Armed Forces specifically with respect to (i) the door-to-door searches of residences, (ii) door-to-door searches of residences by forced entry, (iii) searches for any firearms in residences, (iv) collection of any firearms found while searching residences, (v) transportation of any firearms found while searching residences, (vi) recording of any information regarding firearms found while searching residences, (vii) recording of any information regarding residences in which firearms were located; and (f) was any request by any government entity refused by the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, (i) what was the content of each request by any government entity that was refused by the Canadian Armed Forces, (ii) on what date was each request made, (iii) what were the reasons for the refusal of each request?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in June 2013, the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, provided support to Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, flood relief operations in High River, Alberta. The support was provided pursuant to subsection 273.6(1), Public Service, of the National Defence Act, following a request for assistance from the Minister of Public Safety, which was itself preceded by a request for assistance from the province of Alberta. The CAF was asked for humanitarian support, including transportation support in the effort to locate trapped or injured persons.
The CAF operation in the area was guided by a tasking order from the Chief of the Defence Staff and an operations order issued by the commander, Canadian Joint Operations Command. Concerning operations in conjunction with the RCMP, the operations order stated that CAF personnel would remain under military command at all times and would not engage in assistance to law enforcement agency operations. CAF support and capabilities were specifically directed to be in response to relief efforts for flooding.
With regard to (b), the basis for CAF involvement in the flood relief operations in Alberta was pursuant to the National Defence Act, subsection 273.6(1), Public Service, and not specifically for law enforcement assistance. Public Safety Canada has the lead responsibility for emergency response and CAF personnel were in continuous liaison with Public Safety Canada, as well as with provincial authorities and our other federal partners as part of relief efforts.
With regard to (c), the Department of National Defence and CAF, DND/CAF, did not find any records of official requests made by the RCMP to the CAF for law enforcement assistance.
With regard to (d), DND/CAF did not find any records of official requests made by the RCMP to the CAF for law enforcement assistance.
With regard to (e), these requests would have been made through the formal request for assistance, RFA, process between the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Safety. DND/CAF do not have any records of formal RFAs on assistance with law enforcement activities. On June 21, 2013, the Minister of Public Safety requested the following assistance: evacuation and safeguarding of at-risk persons; safeguarding of critical infrastructure from flooding; resupply of those areas isolated by flooding as requested by civil authorities; provision of engineering, logistic and humanitarian relief support to those communities that must shelter in place; and, assistance in informing the public of the need to avoid entry in to those areas evacuated, damaged or otherwise in need of control and surveillance in order to ensure the safety of emergency personnel and evacuees.
If informal requests for assistance were made to the local commanders, these low-level RFAs would have been handled at site unless there were larger operational concerns.
With regard to (f), as with part (e) these requests would have been made through the formal request for assistance process between the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Safety. DND/CAF do not have any records of formal RFAs on assistance with law enforcement activities.

Question No. 795--
Mr. Dennis Bevington:
With respect to the imprisonment in China of Canadian citizen Huseyin Celil; (a) has the government discussed the topic of his case with Chinese government officials; (b) if discussions have taken place, how were they conducted; (c) what questions did the government ask regarding his status and well-being; (d) what responses did the government receive from the Chinese government; (e) what were the government's follow-up actions based on these responses; (f) has the Canadian Consular services ever visited him in prison (either directly, or indirectly through a third party like Red Crescent or Red Cross); and (g) if the Canadian Consular Services has not visited him in prison, why not?
Response
Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information that constitutes personal information and information that could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs is not shared in accordance with the law.
With regard to (a), the Prime Minister of Canada and senior cabinet ministers have raised Mr. Celil’s case with their counterparts.
With regard to (c), the Government of Canada is actively engaged in Mr. Celil’s case. Senior-level officials have raised his case at every opportunity with the goal of ensuring that he is safe and that he is treated fairly and in accordance with local laws and international norms.
With regard to (e), the Government of Canada is very engaged. Senior officials continue to raise Mr. Celil’s case at every opportunity calling upon the Government of China to permit consular access to Mr. Celil. Canadian consular officials continue all efforts to pursue access to Mr. Celil.
With regard to (f), Canada remains deeply concerned at China’s refusal to recognize Mr. Celil’s Canadian citizenship or permit Canadian consular officials to visit him. Canadian officials continue to call upon the Government of China to permit consular access to Mr. Celil. China does not permit visits by the Red Cross to Chinese prisons.
With regard to (g), Canada remains deeply concerned at China’s refusal to recognize Mr. Celil’s Canadian citizenship or permit Canadian consular officials to visit him. Canadian officials continue to call upon the Government of China to permit consular access to Mr. Celil.

Question No. 800--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With respect to fines and penalties issued or imposed for violations of the Do Not Call List since January 1, 2010: (a) what is the total number and dollar value of Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) that have been imposed; (b) what is the total number and dollar value of AMPs that have been paid to date; (c) what is the total number of negotiated settlements that have been reached to date; (d) what is the total number and dollar value of negotiated settlements that have been paid to date; (e) what is the number of companies that have refused to either pay an AMP or reach a negotiated settlement; (f) for Pecon Software Ltd., (i) did the company seek a review of the fine, (ii) what was the total dollar value of the fine after a review, if any, was completed, (iii) did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine, (iv) was a negotiated settlement reached, (v) if a negotiated settlement was reached, what was its total value (vi) what is the total dollar value of the fine, if any, that has been paid to date, (vii) has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement; and (g) for Avaneesh Software, (i) what was the finding of the Violation and Review Panel, (ii) what was the total dollar value of the fine after the review, if any, (iii) did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine, (iv) was a negotiated settlement reached, (v) what was the total value of the negotiated settlement, if any, (vi) what is the total dollar value of the fine, if any, that has been paid to date, (vii) has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since January 1, 2010, the CRTC has issued 86 administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, including negotiated settlements, for a value of $4,499,800.
With regard to (b), since January 1, 2010, the total number and dollar value of AMPs paid are 62 and $3,900,419 respectively.
With regard to (c), since January 1, 2010, the CRTC has entered into 31 negotiated settlements.
With regard to (d), since January 1, 2010, 28 negotiated settlements have been paid in full for a total of $ 3,423,400.
With regard to (e), since January 1, 2010, no companies have refused to either pay an AMP or reach a negotiated settlement.
With regard to (f), with respect to the fine of $495,000 to Pecon Software Ltd., the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, issued a notice of violation on October 2, 2012. In order to comply with international service requirements, the CRTC filed the documents with the Indian Government’s Ministry of Law and Justice--central authority for extrajudicial service of documents. The CRTC cannot proceed with these matters legally until Pecon Software Ltd. has been legally served. According to the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, the Indian central authority is required to provide the CRTC with an affidavit attesting to the fact that they have legally served the documents to Pecon Software Ltd.
The documents were received by the central authority in India on April 2, 2013. The CRTC is now working with the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice--central authority to serve the documents to Pecon Software Ltd. Once the Indian Ministry has attested to the fact that the documents have been served, Pecon Software Ltd. will have 30 days to pay the penalty or file representations with the CRTC.
With regard to (g), with respect to the fine of $12,000 to Avaneesh Software, the CRTC issued a notice of violation on October 2, 2012, and Avaneesh Software accepted the service of the notice and accompanying documents. Avaneesh Software has submitted representations as per section 72.07(2) of the Telecommunications Act and a violation and review panel will be held to determine if the violations set out in the notice of violation occurred and whether or not to uphold the administrative monetary penalty. The matter has yet to be reviewed.

Question No. 801--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to information in the government's possession concerning First Nation students on-reserve who participated in provincial standardized testing for numeracy and literacy: (a) what was the methodology used to determine the results; (b) what were the ages of the individuals tested; and (c) what were the numeracy and literacy results, broken down by reserve?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, AANDC, and its special operating agency, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, are concerned, the response is as follows:
With regard to (a), first nations schools on reserve covered by regional first nations organizations that receive funding under the first nation student success program, FNSSP, are required to administer to their students standardized tests that are identical to those used by the relevant provincial ministry of education to assess student outcomes. Regional first nations organizations are responsible for the collection, analysis and reporting to AANDC of data on student achievement.
With regard to (b), Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada does not gather information on the ages of the individuals who were tested.
With regard to (c), Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s 2013-2014 departmental performance report, DPR, sets out the percentages of male and female first nations students, broken down by region, who: attended an on-reserve school covered by a regional first nations organization that received funding under the first nation school success program; participated in provincial standardized testing; and met the provincially established standard associated with this testing.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada does not gather or break down information on literacy and numeracy results by reserve.

Question No. 802--
Mr. Jack Harris:
With regard to Canada’s combat mission in Iraq, known as Operation IMPACT: (a) what are the total estimated flying hours for the six-month mission, broken down by month, for each of the following, (i) CF-188 Hornets, (ii) CC-177 Globemaster, (iii) CC-130J Hercules, (iv) CP-140 Aurora, (v) CC-150T Polaris; (b) what are the total estimated costs per hour associated with the flying hours for each of these previously mentioned aircraft; and (c) what is the amount of any additional costs related to the deployment and sustainment of the air mission to Iraq, including the total estimated costs of the establishment of personnel in Kuwait, and all associated costs for the six-month period?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, DND/CAF, provided an estimate of flying hours to the government to inform decision-making on the mission. However, this information cannot be provided at this time, as flying hours remain dynamic and evolve with the refinement of planning and operational assumptions, as well as the requirements of the coalition.
With regard to (a), (i), (iv), and (v) specifically, as of 25 November 2014, Air Task Force Iraq had conducted 111 sorties, including 72 sorties by CF-188 Hornet fighters; 21 sorties by CC-150T Polaris aerial refuelling aircraft, delivering some 976,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and 23 reconnaissance missions by CP-140 Aurora aircraft.
With regard to (a), (ii), and (iii), as of 26 September 2014, CC-177 Globemaster and CC-130J Hercules aircraft had completed 25 flights, delivering more than 1,600,000 pounds of military supplies, consisting of small arms, ammunition, and equipment donated by contributing allies to Iraq.
Further information on the Royal Canadian Air Force’s activities as part of Operation Impact is available on DND/CAF’s website at http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact.page.
With regard to (b), cost estimates are dynamic and evolve with the refinement of planning and operational requirements. Estimates are updated regularly to support planning efforts and decision-making, and therefore any estimate provided would be inaccurate.
With regard to (c), all elements, units, and organizations involved in Operation Impact are required to capture incremental costs and charge expenses related to their tasks in accordance with the published financial directives, and to report results through the Department of National Defence’s financial review process. The costs of a mission are available through the regular parliamentary process, including with the publication of the annual departmental performance report or 90 days following the end of the mission.

Question No. 803--
Mr. Jack Harris:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces’ advise and assist mission to Iraq announced on September 5, 2014: (a) what are the estimated total and incremental costs of the mission; (b) are there other personnel associated with this mission and, if so, how many; and (c) is this mission scheduled to end six months from October 7, 2014, the date the motion to initiate it was adopted by the House of Commons?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the costs of a mission are available through the regular parliamentary process, including with the publication of the annual departmental performance report, or 90 days following the end of the mission. Cost estimates are dynamic and evolve with the refinement of planning and operational requirements. Estimates are updated regularly to support planning efforts and decision-making, and therefore any estimate provided would be inaccurate.
With regard to (b), as announced by the Government of Canada, up to 69 personnel have been authorized for the advise and assist mission in Iraq.
With regard to (c), the Canadian Armed Forces’ advise and assist mission to Iraq is running on the same timelines as those indicated in the motion that was adopted by the House of Commons on the contribution of Canadian military assets to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, and terrorists allied with ISIL.

Question No. 809--
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre:
With regard to transactions respecting Leclerc penitentiary in Laval between the federal government and the Government of Quebec: (a) what was the total cost of the penitentiary transaction; (b) for how much was the kitchen equipment sold; (c) for how much was the laundry equipment sold; and (d) was the heating equipment including in the transaction, and if so, what are the details of the service contract for sharing the heating equipment with the rest of the complex, which includes other federal penitentiaries?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the transaction regarding the Leclerc Institution is not a real estate sale, but rather a lease for a period of ten years effective April 1, 2014, with a renewal option of five years.
In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. As such, the details of the transaction are protected under these principles, as the information was obtained in confidence from the government of a province. In order to determine whether this information can be disclosed, consultations with the provincial government of Quebec are required, and these consultations cannot be completed within the timeframe provided.

Question No. 810--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to Shared Services Canada: (a) what was the intention of the privatization of email services; and (b) what are the consequences of this privatization with respect to (i) public service jobs, (ii) the possible loss of these jobs, (iii) the reliability of email services for shared services employees, (iv) the confidentiality and security of these email services, (v) the savings or losses from these changes to email services?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the email transformation initiative, ETI, will replace 63 different legacy email systems across 43 organizations, affecting over 375,000 employees, as part of a whole-of-government approach, consistent with the government’s strategy to create a secure, centralized, and modern information technology infrastructure. The decision to move to an enterprise-wide email solution was based upon meeting the Government of Canada’s stated requirements: increased security, providing value for money, and improving services to Canadians.
With regard to (b)(i) and (ii), the decision to move to an enterprise-wide email solution was based upon meeting the Government of Canada’s stated requirements: increased security, providing value for money, and improving services to Canadians.
When SSC was created in August 2011, there were approximately 360 public service employees supporting email services across 63 email systems. There are currently about 140 public service employees supporting the existing email legacy systems and working to implement a single modern, consolidated system for the Government of Canada.
As the consolidation project is implemented, some employees who had been working on legacy departmental email systems have already been re-assigned to other transformation activities within SSC or have accepted appointments to positions outside of SSC. Other employees will continue to work on supporting the existing email legacy systems until the transition to the modern, consolidated system is complete. They will then be assigned to other positions. SSC is committed to supporting employees throughout this transformation process, helping them build the skills they need to meet evolving government requirements. To do this, SSC has implemented a workforce management strategy that was designed at the outset of the ETI project and endorsed by SSC and bargaining agents.
With regard to (b)(iii), moving to a single, integrated email system will reduce the diversity, duplication, and complexity of email services; enhance access; and improve how public servants work to deliver programs to Canadian citizens and businesses. To ensure reliability and to help better manage, monitor, and protect the email system, state of the art anti-spam and anti-virus software will be used to inspect all emails entering the system. The email server will be hosted in secure facilities to ensure high availability and recoverability of data in accordance with government policies and procedures. The ETI project is being rolled out in a series of waves across the Government of Canada, beginning with SSC, to ensure that the solution works and that it is secure.
With regard to (b)(iv), increasing the security of email communication is a fundamental component of the new email service, which has up-to-date security features incorporated into its design, construction, and operation. SSC is committed to protecting the information and the confidentiality of data held by the Government of Canada.
For all services, including the new consolidated email system, SSC's security architecture is based upon an approach that uses a series of control measures to protect information. SSC will continue to work with its partners to ensure that equipment comes from trusted vendors and that services meet Government of Canada security standards.
With regard to (b)(v), beginning in 2015–16, the Government of Canada will achieve $50 million in annual savings through the standardization and consolidation of email services into one solution.

Question No. 815--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With respect to each expenditure contained in each budget or budget implementation bill since fiscal year 2006-2007, inclusively: (a) has the Department of Finance done an economic impact analysis of the expenditure; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what is the date, name and file number of any record which constitutes part of that analysis; (c) has the Department of Finance relied on any economic impact analysis of any organization outside government on the expenditure or not; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, (i) which organizations analysed the measure, (ii) what is the date, name and file number of any record obtained from that organization which constitutes part of that analysis?
Response
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the department conducts a broad analysis of every measure included in the budget and budget-related legislation on elements that include the following: proposed program design, program effectiveness, administrative issues, and general economic impacts. It is not the department’s practice to develop specific estimates of the job impact of each measure.
With regard to (b), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and some information has been withheld on the grounds that the information is considered confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.
With regard to (c), when assessing proposals, the department considers analyses of outside organizations.
With regard to (d), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and some information has been withheld on the grounds that the information is considered confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.

Question No. 819--
Ms. Peggy Nash:
With regard to Canada Post: (a) what are the details of the five-point turnaround plan to put Canada Post on track for financial sustainability by 2020; (b) what is the annual budget for advertising campaigns, broken down by (i) medium, (ii) region, (iii) product or service line, (iv) any additional internal categories used not included in this question; (c) what are the internal metrics for measuring success of any advertising outlined in (b); and (d) what is the cost of any advertising campaigns from (b) in (i) fiscal year 2012-2013, (ii) fiscal year 2013-2014, (iii) fiscal year-to-date 2014-2015?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Canada Post’s five-point action plan is available at: https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/assets/pdf/aboutus/5_en.pdf
With regard to parts (b), (c), and (d), the requested information is financial and commercial in nature and has always been treated as confidential.

Question No. 822--
Mr. Philip Toone:
With regard to employment insurance benefits: (a) what are the amounts paid out for employment insurance benefits in Quebec from fiscal year 2010–2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) economic region, (iii) electoral district, (iv) regional county municipality (RCM) or the most detailed level available; (b) how many beneficiaries have there been in Quebec from fiscal year 2010–2011 to the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) economic region, (iii) electoral district, (iv) RCM or the most detailed level available; and (c) if the information requested in (a) and (b) is not available, why is that the case?
Response
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the amount of employment insurance regular benefits paid, which is under part I of the Employment Insurance Act, and the number of employment insurance beneficiaries, meaning the number of new claims for which at least one dollar of employment insurance regular benefits was paid, are available by province and employment insurance economic region and by year until 2012–13. Annex 2.5 of the 2012-13 EI Monitoring and Assessment Report provides this information. The report is accessible via the following link: http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/reports/ei/monitoring2013/index.page.
The employment insurance program is designed and administered based on 62 employment insurance regions. As a result, data by electoral district and regional county municipality, or RCM, are not available. As for the data in 2013–14, they will be available in the first quarter of 2015.

Question No. 823--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to the government's Temporary Public Policy Concerning Tibetans Living in the State of Arunachal Pradesh in India: (a) how much has been spent in research towards implementing this resettlement program; (b) what is the budget allocated to this program; (c) how many applications for permanent residence have been made under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for this program; and (d) how many applicants have been resettled?
Response
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, is concerned, with regard to (a) and (b), this public policy has been implemented within existing CIC reference levels and with existing staff. There have been no funds earmarked specifically for research.
With regard to (c), as of November 26, 2014, 517 applications for permanent residence have been made.
With regard to (d), as of November 26, 2014, 197 persons have been resettled.

Question No. 824--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to construction undertaken during the period from fiscal year 2004-2005 to 2014-2015, inclusively: (a) how much has been spent on scaffolding throughout the Parliamentary Precinct including specific costs incurred for (i) the preparation of the building, (ii) construction, (iii) maintenance, (iv) the entire project; and (b) how much has been spent on scaffolding for the Paul Martin Building in Windsor, Ontario, including specific costs incurred for (i) the preparation of the building, (ii) construction, (iii) maintenance, (iv) the entire project?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the information on scaffolding for the Parliamentary Precinct was obtained for multiple projects over multiple years, while the information on scaffolding for the Paul Martin Building is accounted for as a single project.
With regard to part (a), the scaffolding costs throughout the Parliamentary Precinct, including specific costs incurred, were, for (a)(i), $835,902.33; for (a)(ii), $18,757,302.86; for (a)(iii), $1,733,470.72; and for (a)(iv), $21,326,675.91.
With regard to part (b), scaffolding was installed on the Paul Martin Building in 2010. The specific costs listed in the question were, for (b)(i), nil, in that there were no preparation costs; for (b)(ii), $77,212.00; for (b)(iii), $407,931.90; and for (b)(iv), $538,750.15. The entire project cost $485,143.90, plus an encroachment fee for the use of the public sidewalk of $53,606.25, which was paid to the City of Windsor for the period July 2, 2014, to July 1, 2015, bringing the total cost to $538,750.15.

Question No. 825--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With respect to the creation of the position of President of the Public Health Agency of Canada in Bill C-43, the Budget Implementation Act: (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted leading up to the creation of this position; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process before the creation of this position; and (c) what are the dates, times, and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted before the creation of this position?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, changes to the Public Health Agency of Canada’s organizational structure are aimed at strengthening both its internal management and public health capacity. The division of responsibilities between the president and the chief public health officer will enhance the agency’s internal management and allow the chief public health officer to focus on the important public health needs of Canadians. The proposed position of president will bring the leadership of the agency in alignment with other health portfolio organizations; both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research are led by presidents. These changes were proposed by the chief public health officer, Dr. Gregory Taylor, and recommended by both him and the president-designate, Ms. Krista Outhwaite.
As part of the legislative process, parliamentarians were briefed on the proposed changes. Bill C-43 was discussed and read in both the House of Commons and the Senate and examined in committees: the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology; the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance; the Senate National Finance Committee. Witnesses gave their opinions on the bill and it was subjected to clause-by-clause study based on the testimony.
The chief public health officer, Dr. Taylor, pointed out during his appearances that he supports this proposal as it will allow his position to focus on moving Canada forward on public health issues; providing excellent advice directly to the Minister of Health and to Canadians; collaborating with all partners, and interacting with multiple key players including the Canadian public.
At the same time, a dedicated Public Health Agency of Canada president will provide strategic policy and management leadership for a world-leading and strong public sector organization. The president, as deputy head, will become the agency’s accounting officer and will focus on many of the issues for which the CPHO was previously accountable, including finance, audit, evaluation, staffing, official languages, and access to information and privacy. These are all important functions, requiring the attention of an experienced public service leader.
The changes will allow the chief public health officer to dedicate more of his time to public health issues of importance to Canadians. This is also a model seen in many provinces across Canada, and internationally.

Question No. 829--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With respect to Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s pause in processing visa applications from foreign nationals who have been physically present in a country designated by the World Health Organization as having widespread and intense transmission of the Ebola virus on Friday, October 31, 2014: (a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted leading up to this decision; (b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process; and (c) what are the dates, times, and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted?
Response
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, is concerned, the Government of Canada has a duty to ensure that the security and safety of Canadians is paramount in determining the admissibility of foreign nationals. In rapidly evolving situations where the potential impact may be very significant, potentially resulting in loss of life, it is essential that the government take decisive action to protect the well-being of its citizens.
That is why on October 31, 2014, it announced precautionary measures to protect the health and safety of all Canadians. Under these new measures, visas for temporary residence will not be issued unless the officer is satisfied the applicant has not been in an Ebola-affected country within the three months prior to the finalization of an application. Discretion remains for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to grant entry where travel is essential and in Canadians’ interest.
CIC consulted with partners across government including those in the public safety and health portfolios. The Public Health Agency of Canada has significant experience and responsibility for public health and safety. This includes a consultative relationship with the World Health Organization, which was contacted upon development of these new measures. The government has advised various domestic and international stakeholders including government representatives from the affected countries, at the time of deployment.

Question No. 832--
Mr. Paul Dewar:
With regard to the Family Class sponsorships and Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Regulation 117(9)(d): (a) how many Family Class sponsorships have been denied by visa officers based on this Regulation since its inception in 2003; (b) of the refused applications, (i) how many of the excluded family members were spouses, (ii) how many of the excluded family members were children, (iii) what is the gender breakdown of the sponsors; (c) how many sponsors have requested an exemption from this Regulation to allow their excluded family member to come to Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under Section 25 of the IRPA; (d) how many requests for exemptions were granted; (e) of the exemptions that were granted, (i) how many of the excluded family members were spouses, (ii) how many of the excluded family members were children, (iii) what is the gender breakdown of the sponsors; (f) how many requests for exemptions were refused; and (g) of the exemptions that were refused, (i) how many of the excluded family members were spouses, (ii) how many of the excluded family members were children, (iii) what is the gender breakdown of the sponsors?
Response
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, is concerned, in response to question (a), a total of 1,200 family class applications have been refused based on the R117(9)(d) refusal ground, in persons, beginning in 2010. Prior to 2010, a different system was in use by the department, which did not allow for the consistent tracking and reporting of refusal grounds. Due to this, CIC can only report on the number of applications that were refused based on 117(9)(d) beginning in 2010 for those applications that were processed in the global case management system, GCMS.
In response to questions (b)(i) and (ii), CIC does not capture this level of detail sought for these questions in a systematic fashion and therefore cannot provide this information.
In response to question (b)(iii), of the 1,200 family class applicants refused with R117(9)(d), 333 were female sponsors and 594 were male sponsors.
In response to questions (c) to (g), CIC is not able to report on this type of information as it is not tracked systematically in the global case Management system, GCMS, and therefore CIC cannot provide the level of detail required.

Question No. 833--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of National Defense and the policy stating that Members of Parliament only have permission to visit a regional base if it is within their constituency: (a) when did this policy become a formal departmental policy; (b) what were the reasons given for establishing this policy; and (c) how many requests have been denied?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, while the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces endeavour to maintain an open and accessible posture in order to connect with the Canadian public, this approach is balanced against the need to limit visits to military bases when such visits interfere with operational missions and critical security activities. A directive is currently in draft form awaiting publication in the defence administrative orders and directives. The departmental position is that the Canadian Armed Forces’ wings and bases are to support cabinet committee work, commissions, as well as their own members of Parliament and senators within capabilities. The draft directive reflects this position.
The Department of National Defence has no central tracking system regarding visits to military bases and therefore cannot report how many, if any, requests from members of Parliament to visit bases have been denied.

Question No. 834--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to Transport Canada and tanker vessel traffic entering Placentia Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) where is the oil spill response equipment for Placentia Bay stored; (b) what is the oil spill capacity of the response equipment; (c) what is the response time if an oil spill should occur; and (d) is there personnel on-call to handle an oil spill?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, its regulations and standards require potential polluters to maintain a minimum level of preparedness at all times. Prescribed oil handling facilities must have an arrangement with a certified response organization that would maintain a prescribed level of preparedness to respond to a spill on the polluter's behalf. Oil handling facilities must each have onsite plans, equipment, personnel, and training and exercise programs that allow them to deploy an immediate response in the event of an oil spill.
There are several caches of oil pollution countermeasures equipment in Placentia Bay. Oil handling facilities such as North Atlantic Refining Limited and Newfoundland Transshipment Limited have their own stockpile of spill response equipment equating to 150 tonnes as they are responsible for initially responding to their own spills.
Eastern Canada Response Corporation, the response organization responsible for responding to ship-source oil spills in this area, stores its pollution countermeasures equipment at its base in Donovan’s Industrial Park in Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Canadian Coast Guard also stores its pollution countermeasures equipment at its base in Donovan’s Industrial Park in Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador.
In response to part (b), Transport Canada is the lead agency responsible for Canada's marine oil spill preparedness and response regime. The regime was established in 1995 to enable industry to respond to its own oil spills of up to 10,000 tones within the prescribed time standards and operating environments, for Canadian waters south of 60 degrees north latitude. The regime is built upon a partnership between government and industry. It sets rigorous standards for response organizations and oil handling facilities, and establishes the requirements for national preparedness capacity.
In response to part (c), designated ports, each with a primary area of responsibility, are an important piece of Canada's marine oil spill response regime.. A designated port has higher volumes of oil transferred between the shore and a vessel than other ports. The associated higher risk requires more concentrated response capability. A designated port thus has advantages with respect to spill response time and capability. Holyrood and Come By Chance are two designated ports in Newfoundland and Labrador. The response time to deploy equipment at a designated port is six hours.
In response to part (d), under part 8 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, prescribed oil handling facilities and vessels must have arrangements with a response organization, in this case, Eastern Canada Response Corporation. As part of its response plan, Eastern Canada Response Corporation has response personnel available to respond to a spill when contracted by the polluter.
In addition, oil handling facilities have personnel, listed in their oil pollution emergency plans, who must be available to respond in the event of a spill.
The Canadian Coast Guard monitors the overall response to ensure that it is effective, timely, and appropriate to the incident. In the event that the polluter is unable to respond, unwilling to take action or unknown, the Canadian Coast Guard becomes the on-scene commander.

Question No. 835--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what communication occurred between the Minister's office and the Department regarding the extension of the food fishery in fall 2014 in Newfoundland and Labrador; and (b) what were the formal reasons given for the extension?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the communication between the department and the minister’s office regarding the extension of the recreational groundfish fishery in fall 2014, in Newfoundland and Labrador, included the drafting of a note regarding the decision to extend the fishery.
In response to (b), the formal reason for the extension was the result of poor weather during the second half of the fall fishing seasons, September 20 to September 28, which created safety concerns for recreational fishers. As a result the minister made the decision to extend the fishery by three days.

Question No. 836--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to federal judicial appointments from 1993 to 2014 inclusive: (a) broken down by year, province, level of court, (i) how many judicial appointments were made, (ii) how many of those appointments were women, (iii) what percentage were women, (iv) how many indicated French as a first language, (v) what percentage indicated French as a first language, (vi) how many were visible minorities, (vii) what percentage were visible minorities, (viii) how many were Aboriginal, First Nations, or Métis, (ix) what percentage were Aboriginal, First Nations, or Métis; (b) broken down by year, how many persons were appointed to the following Judicial Appointments Advisory Committees or their predecessors, if any names changed, (i) Alberta, (ii) British Columbia, (iii) Manitoba, (iv), New Brunswick, (v) Newfoundland and Labrador, (vi) Northwest Territories, (vii) Nova Scotia, (viii) Nunavut, (ix) Ontario, East and North, (x) Ontario, Greater Toronto Area, (xi) Ontario, West and South, (xii) Prince Edward Island, (xiii) Quebec, East, (xiv) Quebec, West, (xv) Saskatchewan, (xvi) Yukon, (xvii) Tax Court of Canada; (c) for the persons named by the Justice Minister to the committees in (b), how many and what percentage were (i) women, (ii) Francophone, (iii) Aboriginal, First Nations, or Métis, (iv) visible minorities, broken down by committee and year; (d) how many applications were received total, and of these, how many were from (i) women, (ii) Francophones, (iii) Aboriginals, First Nations, or Métis, (iv) visible minorities, broken down by year and Judicial Advisory Committee; (e) what percentage of applicants were appointed, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) first language, (iii) visible minority status, (iv) Aboriginal, First Nations, or Métis status, broken down by year for all federal judicial appointments; (f) what was the ratio of men to women on the committee and the ratio of women to men in terms of appointments for each year, broken down by Judicial Advisory Committee; (g) in what ways were appointment demographics measured, tracked, and monitored; (h) were any targets, quotas, or principles set with respect to the diversity of those serving on the Advisory Committees; (i) were any targets, quotas, or principles set with respect to the diversity of those who received judicial appointments; (j) what specific efforts were made to ensure diversity on Judicial Advisory Committees; (k) what documents are available that substantiate the answer in (j) with reference, control, or access numbers; (l) what specific efforts were made to ensure diversity in federal judicial appointments; (m) what documents are available that substantiate the answer in (l) with reference, control, or access numbers; (n) what meetings did the Department or Minister have with regard to ensuring diversity on Judicial Advisory Committees, broken down by year; (o) what meetings did the Department or Minister have to ensure diversity among federal judicial appointees, broken down by year; (p) how many Supreme Court of Canada appointments were made, broken down by Prime Minister; (q) how many of the appointments in (p) were of women; (r) what efforts were made to ensure gender parity on the Supreme Court of Canada; (s) how many federal judicial appointments were made to the (i) Federal Court, (ii) Federal Court of Appeals, (iii) Tax Court of Canada or their predecessor bodies, broken down by year; (t) of the appointments in (s) how many were (i) women, (ii) Francophone, (iii) Aboriginal, First Nations, or Métis, (iv) visible minorities; (u) of the candidates considered for each position filled in (s) how many were (i) women, (ii) Francophone, (iii) Aboriginal, First Nations, or Métis, (iv) visible minorities; (v) are women statistically more likely to be appointed to some courts over others and, if so, what explains this difference; (w) are women statistically less likely to be appointed to some courts over others and, if so, what explains this difference; (x) in what ways does the likelihood of an Aboriginal, First Nations, or Métis person receiving a federal judicial appointment vary; (y) in what ways does the likelihood of visible minority receiving a federal judicial appointment vary; (z) regarding the statistics needed to answer (x) and (y), have any quantities studies been completed by the government regarding any relationship between likelihood of appointment and demographic factors; (aa) have any studies been conducted on the demographics of individuals receiving federal judicial appointments; (bb) have any studies been conducted on the demographics panels, boards, and committees responsible for federal judicial appointments; (cc) regarding applications for judicial appointment, how do the percentage of applicants compare with general Canadian population as a whole, broken down by (i) year, (ii) gender, (iii) visible minority, (iv) Aboriginal, First Nations, or Métis status; (dd) regarding federal judicial appointments, how do the percentage of appointees compare with the general Canadian population, broken down by (i) year, (ii) gender, (iii) visible minority, (iv) Aboriginal, First Nations, or Métis status; (ee) regarding appointment to Federal Judicial Advisory Committees, how does the percentage of applicants compare with general Canadian population as a whole, broken down by (i) year, (ii) gender, (iii) visible minority, (iv) Aboriginal, First Nations, or Métis status; (ff) for each appointment made within the period, what was the duration of time between the date the vacancy arose and the date of appointment, broken down by court; (gg) what policies, guidelines, or targets exist regarding the timeliness of filling vacancies on courts; (hh) for each appointment made within the period to a judicial advisory committee, what was the duration of time between the date the vacancy arose and the date of appointment, broken down by advisory committee; (ii) what policies, guidelines, or targets exist regarding the timeliness of filling vacancies on advisory committees; (jj) what was the average time between a vacancy arising and it being filled, broken down by (i) year, (ii) court; (kk) what accounts for variations in the delay between a judicial vacancy arising and its being filled; (ll) when multiple vacancies exist concurrently, in what order are appointments made; (mm) for each court to which federal judicial appointments are made, what is the vacancy percentage, broken down by (i) year, (ii) court; (nn) do any requirements exist regarding the deadline by which a vacancy must be filled, broken down by court; (oo) what are the consequences of judicial vacancies on courts to which federal judicial appointments are made; (pp) what studies has the government undertaken or completed with respect to the impact of judicial vacancies; (qq) what metrics, if any, has the government identified with respect to judicial vacancies, (i) how are these measured, (ii) how often, (iii) by whom, (iv) for what purpose, (v) with what reporting; (rr) what metrics, if any, has the government identified with respect to judicial appointments, (i) how are these measured, (ii) how often, (iii) by whom, (iv) for what purpose, (v) with what reporting; and (ss) in what ways have any of the federal judicial appointments processes changed over the period indicated?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested is not readily available and would require an extensive manual search of all records. It is therefore not feasible to produce a response within the time period allotted.

Question No. 837--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With respect to the evidence requested from the Department of Justice by the Costa Rican Attorney General, to which the latter referred in his statement of October 3, 2014: (a) does the Minister of Justice or his Department have any information regarding an amount of $200,000 sent to the Aria Foundation for Peace in 2008 and, if so, what are details, including the identity of the sender and the relationship between the sender and Infinito Gold, Ronald Mannix, the Norlien Foundation, and Coril Holdings Ltd.; and (b) did the Department of Justice answer the Costa Rican Attorney General's questions in the first request letter (#08-000011-033-PE) sent on Tuesday, December 10, 2013, as well as in the second request letter (#12-000124-621-PE) dated Tuesday, February 4, 2014, (i) if so, what answer was provided, (ii) if not, why not?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the confidentiality of state-to-state communications, the Department of Justice does not confirm nor deny any requests for legal assistance by other countries.

Question No. 839--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: has the Department done an assessment on the total cost to remove the oil from the Manolis L that sunk off the coast of Newfoundland in 1985?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard remain committed to protecting our oceans from ship-sourced oil spills. The government has made this clear through the ongoing implementation of a world-class tanker safety system.
The Canadian Coast Guard has received some advice from international experts regarding how to best address the Manolis L situation since March 2013. Further analysis and data collection is required in order to make the most informed decision as part of the ongoing management plan for the Manolis L. The Canadian Coast Guard successfully completed a major operation on the Manolis L wreck in December 2014. This included the cleaning of the cofferdam, replacement with a new cofferdam and detailed inspection of the hull. Removal of oil collected in the cofferdam was within its capacity and samples will be sent to Environment Canada for analysis.
Surveillance of the area has detected no oil. The Canadian Coast Guard plans to return to the site of the Manolis L in the spring of 2015 to conduct the next oil removal from the cofferdam.
The Canadian Coast Guard, along with its federal partners, Transport Canada and Environment Canada, is continuing to monitor and manage the site. Should this situation change, the department will take the necessary action to mitigate the risk.

Question No. 844--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to Canadian military bases and stations both in Canada and abroad: since 2007, what are (a) the names and ridings of Members of Parliament who have visited any bases or stations; (b) the dates that the Members visited; (c) the name of the base or station that was visited; (d) the purpose of the visit; and (e) any costs associated with Member’s visit?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, DND/CAF, do not have a centralized tracking and reporting mechanism for visits by members of Parliament to CAF bases and stations, whether in Canada or abroad. As such, DND/CAF is unable to provide the requested details in the available timeframe.

Question No. 845--
Ms. Mylène Freeman:
With respect to the implementation of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco): (a) what is the full itemized cost of implementing the bill; (b) what are the steps identified to implement the bill; (c) what is the timeline to implement the bill; (d) on the Mohawk territory of Kanehsatà:ke, whom does the government anticipate will enforce the law once implemented and, more specifically, does the government anticipate that it will be enforced by (i) the Sureté du Québec, (ii) the RCMP; (e) on the Mohawk territory of Kanehsatà:ke, what does the government project it will cost to enforce the law, once implemented; (f) how many residents of Kanehsatà:ke does the government project will potentially be affected; (g) how much contraband tobacco does the government expect to seize fromKanehsatà:ke; (h) how much revenue in Kanehsatà: ke will be affected; and (i) how does the government anticipate that residents of Kanehsatà:ke will be tried under the law, once implemented?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), it is not anticipated that there will be any new costs in implementing this bill.
With regard to (b), the act will come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. On coming into force, it will provide a new tool for federal and provincial law enforcement to lay charges under the Criminal Code for the trafficking of high volumes--10,000 cigarettes or more or 10 kg or more of raw leaf or any other tobacco product--of contraband tobacco.
On the act’s coming into force, the RCMP will implement an internal communications process to inform front-line RCMP officers of the new legislation.
With regard to (c), the act will come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.
With regard to (d), the Criminal Code applies evenly across Canada. The new Criminal Code offence will provide both the RCMP and the Sureté du Québec with a new tool to address the problem of trafficking in contraband tobacco. The bill will also allow for concurrent jurisdiction, whereby the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and provincial attorneys general would share the authority to prosecute this new Criminal Code offence. It is not anticipated that there will be any new costs in implementing this bill.
With regard to (e), it is not anticipated that there will be any new costs in enforcing this bill.
With regard to (f), it is recognized that organized crime networks are exploiting first nation communities and the jurisdictional and political relationships between those communities, governments, and enforcement agencies.
The objective of Bill C-10 is to target organized crime groups operating in these communities and involved in the large-volume trafficking of contraband tobacco, as well as other forms of serious criminality, including trafficking in weapons and illicit drugs.
With regard to (g), Bill C-10 provides a new tool for federal and provincial law enforcement agencies to target organized crime groups involved in the contraband tobacco market.
The RCMP focuses its federal investigations on criminal networks conducting illegal operations in Canada, regardless of the illicit commodity. The outcome of potential seizures of contraband tobacco resulting from Bill C-10 is unknown.
With regard to (h), Bill C-10 establishes a new Criminal Code offence to help address the problem of trafficking in contraband tobacco. The bill is not intended to affect legitimate trade in tobacco products, but rather to target organized crime groups and their associates involved in the large-volume trafficking of contraband tobacco.
With regard to (i), under the bill, the maximum penalty for a first offence would be six months’ imprisonment on summary conviction and five years’ imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment. The decision to proceed by way of summary conviction, six months, or indictment, five years, is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
The bill also establishes mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment of six months to two years less a day on second and subsequent convictions.

Question No. 846--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With respect to the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) Conference of the Parties in March of 2013: (a) why has the government placed reservations on all species added to Appendix I or II of the Wild Animal and Plant Trade regulations from the meeting of the Conference of the Parties rather than adding them to Schedule I of Canada’s Wild Animal and Plant Trade Regulations; and (b) does the government intend to lift these reservations and fulfil its commitment to CITES and, if so, what is the timeline in which the government intends on lifting the reservations on all species given increased protection?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Canada is supportive of all the CoP16 decisions and takes the commitments made at the CITES Conference of the Parties very seriously. Canada’s reservation on all the species listing decisions at the 16th meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties, CoP16, is temporary, undertaken for administrative and procedural reasons.
The reservation placed by Canada is done so that Canada is not in contravention of CITES obligations and with Canada’s treaty law policy and procedures.The convention, drafted in 1975, allows 90 days for countries to update their regulations. Canada, as with many other parties to the convention, is unable to meet the short timelines for making the necessary regulatory changes. In order to avoid being in contravention of treaty requirements, the Government of Canada placed a temporary reservation until such time as listing decisions of the Conference of the Parties can be reflected in its domestic regulations.
With regard to (b), yes, Canada fully intends to lift the temporary reservation.
Environment Canada is working diligently to complete the regulatory changes to schedule I of the wild animal and plant trade regulations to enable the listing changes agreed at the 16th Conference of Parties to be legally enforced in Canada by spring 2015. Once the regulatory changes are completed, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development will proceed to obtain the necessary authorities and lift the temporary reservation.

Question No. 858--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to Public Works and the temporary flagpole erected between West Block of Parliament and the central lawn: (a) what is the date on which the temporary flagpole was initially installed; (b) on what dates was it relocated; (c) who carried out each relocation; and (d) what have been the costs associated with each relocation?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in the winter of 2011, the pole was temporarily moved outside the West Block construction area to replace the pole that was on the West Block prior to the start of the major rehabilitation project.
With regard to (b), during the summer of 2014, the construction area for the West Block rehabilitation project was expanded for health and safety reasons. The base and the pole in question were therefore relocated southeast of the West Block. The pole is there to ensure that the flag is present on the west side of the Hill and that the program whereby Canadian flags from Parliament Hill are given to Canadian citizens is continued for the duration of the rehabilitation work.
With regard to (c), in the winter of 2011, PWGSC and PCL Construction carried out the relocation. In the summer of 2014, PCP Construction carried out the relocation.
With regard to (d), in the winter of 2011, the total cost for the purchase of the pole and its installation was $25,000. Of that cost, $14,000 was used to purchase the flagpole, with a brushed aluminum finish; and $11,000 was used for the installation of the pole and the establishment of a safety perimeter. The pole in question is 15.25 metres high and meets the ceremonial standards for Parliament Hill.
In the summer of 2014, $2,000 was used to relocate the base, the flagpole, and the safety perimeter southeast of the West Block.
Note that the cost of these relocations was included in the budget approved for the West Block rehabilitation project.

Question No. 862--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Policy: (a) what progress has been made in reaching the goals of the Wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Policy; (b) has there been a performance review of the Wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Policy since its 2009 announcement, (i) if so, what are the findings of such a review, (ii) if not, why not, (iii) again if not, what justification is there for not respecting the five year deadline for an independent review; and (c) has the government formed a task force or advisory committee with the authority and resources to meet with stakeholders, review relevant information, and advise Fisheries and Oceans Canada of the measures needed to increase salmon populations on the Miramichi River, (i) if so, what are the details of the task force or advisory committee, (ii) if not, why not?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the intent of the wild Atlantic salmon conservation policy is to provide a framework for decision-making and priority-setting. The progress of its goals is therefore measured in terms of plans, investments, and partnerships, some recent examples of which include the following: the establishment of the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program in 2013, and allocation of over $1 million to community groups for projects to rebuild and restore wild salmon habitat; support of 53 projects in 2014 under the Atlantic salmon endowment fund, and ongoing science activities to rigorously undertake counts of salmon returns, including the dedication of nearly 65,000 hours in 2013 alone for monitoring and enforcement activities; introduction of extra measures for salmon conservation in 2014, including reductions in allowable retention for recreational anglers; and advocacy for sustainable fishing at forums such as the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization.
With regard to (b), early planning to review of the wild Atlantic salmon conservation policy starting in 2015 has been initiated. The intention is to present a plan for discussion and feedback at the next meeting of the Atlantic salmon advisory committee, expected in the spring/summer of 2015.
With regard to (c), the creation of a ministerial advisory committee on Atlantic salmon to help determine the course of action to address low returns of Atlantic salmon on the east coast was announced on December 18, 2014. The committee, supported by officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, will focus on the following aspects: conservation and enforcement measures, predation, and a strategy to address international unsustainable fishing, and focused areas for advancing science.

Question No. 870--
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:
With regard to the Canadian observers sent by the government to monitor Tunisia’s recent presidential and legislative elections: (a) how many observers took part in the observation missions and what are their names; (b) with which organizations did the observers work; and (c) what selection process was used to choose the observers?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as announced on October 26, following Tunisia’s legislative elections and again following the first and second rounds of the presidential election, Canada is pleased to have supported the deployment of both domestic and international election observers. These election observers served as a confidence building measure for the Tunisian population as they voted in their first democratic elections, and monitored and reported upon the conduct of the elections in line with national regulations and international election benchmarks and standards for democratic elections.
With regard to (a), the delegation included four Canadian observers for the legislative elections and nine for each round of the presidential elections.
For the legislative elections on October 26, 2014, the observers were Darrell Dexter, Elizabeth Weir, Eric Duhaime, and Sylvia Thomson.
For the first round of the presidential election on November 23, 2014, the observers were Les Campbell, Olivia Chow, Paul Hong, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, Michael Ferrabee, Mathieu Jacques, Greg Lyle, David McLaughlin, and Chris Yonke.
For the second round of the presidential election on December 21, 2014, the observers were Les Campbell, the Hon. Ken Dryden, Darrell Dexter, Paul Hong, Greg Lyle, John MacDonell, the Hon. William Paul Robert Norris, Nathan Rotman, and Chris Yonke.
With regard to (b), while a number of international organizations sent election observers to Tunisia, Canada’s funding was through the National Democratic Institute, NDI. The aforementioned Canadian observers formed a part of the NDI delegation.
With regard to (c), the recruitment, selection, and deployments of observers were done by the partner, NDI, who selected individuals through its global network of experts and partners. NDI draws upon current and former members of parliaments and other legislative bodies, current and former heads of state, current and former government officials, election commissioners, technical and legal experts, and civil society activists, among others.
Canada supports the tremendous progress that has been achieved in the pursuit of a free and democratic Tunisia and will continue to support Tunisia’s continued efforts to strengthen its democracy and build a prosperous and secure future for all Tunisians.

Question No. 871--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to servers, including leased physical and virtual servers and cloud-based servers, owned, operated, shared, or otherwise used by the government for all platforms and protocols, broken down by department: (a) what operating system and kernel version is the server using, including, for all unix-variant systems, the output of "uname -a"; (b) in what datacenter is the server physically located; (c) who owns, provides, and operates the server; (d) what is the purpose of the server; (e) for each service provided by the server, what is the name, type, software used, protocol, and listening ports of the service; (f) what security compromises have been detected in each service provided by the server, broken down by (i) the nature of the security compromise (privilege escalation, rooting or rootkits, sniffed packets, compromised passwords, worms, viruses, trojans, lost data storage devices, unauthorised use of information by otherwise authorised users, etc.), (ii) the details of any information accessed without proper authority, damaged, or lost, (iii) the classification and designation of the compromise and the information compromised, (iv) measures taken to prevent further security compromises, (v) date the security compromise was detected, (vi) date the security compromise was believed or found to have taken place, (vii) date the security compromise was resolved; (g) of the security compromises identified in (f), what are the file numbers of any correspondence or government records related to any such security compromises, broken down by (i) relevant file numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, other officials copied or involved; and (h) on what dates have any threat risk assessments been conducted that affected or involved the server or its surrounding infrastructure, stored data, use, or relevant department?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, SSC was created on August 4, 2011, as a common service organization providing information technology, IT, infrastructure services to other federal government departments and agencies. Its mandate is to consolidate, standardize, transform, and deliver e-mail, data centre, and telecommunication services to 43 federal departments and agencies.
For security reasons, SSC does not share or discuss information related to Government of Canada servers.
SSC is accountable and responsible for IT infrastructure, systems, and services within its purview and for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information processed. SSC does not publish information that, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to be used in a malicious fashion against Government of Canada IT infrastructure. This includes information relating to servers, data centre locations, cyberattacks, and current tactics, techniques, and processes used to defend Government of Canada IT infrastructure.

Question No. 872--
Mr. Pat Martin:
With regard to the government and the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB): (a) the 2011-12 Annual Report states that expenses were “offset by $177.3 million in government reimbursements”, what is meant by this statement; (b) what expenses were the reimbursements made for; (c) what government reimbursements were made in fiscal years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014; (d) what total government revenues were paid to the CWB in each fiscal year and crop year between 2011 and 2014; (e) what was the objective of these government revenues; (f) on which dates and in which amounts were the $349 million, pledged by the Minister of Agriculture in June 2012, transferred to the CWB; (g) what studies were conducted by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food regarding the future of the CWB; (h) what public and private consultations were undertaken regarding the privatization of the CWB in 2012, 2013, and 2014, (i) who were those consultations with, (ii) on what dates; (i) what is the total outstanding amount owed to the government for credit sales undertaken by the CWB; (j) what foreign customers have outstanding credit sales; (k) what is the status of interest owed on outstanding credit sales; and (l) which body or government agency will receive the interest paid on credit sales?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in anticipation of the government’s funding of certain restructuring costs of the Canadian Wheat Board, CWB, through the Canadian Wheat Board transition cost program, CTP, the CWB notionally estimated $177.3 million in reimbursable costs as of July 31, 2012, accrued in their financial statements.
With regard to (b), the funding provided under the CTP was in relation to the following restructuring expenses that were incurred in the year ended July 31, 2012 and described in the CWB’s financial statements as follows: loss on property, plant and equipment; impairment loss on intangible assets; employee severance expense; and net expenses related to the curtailment of pension and post-employment benefit plans.
With regard to (c) and (d), see the Public Accounts of Canada.
With regard to (e), the purpose of these expenditures from the CTP was to reimburse the transaction costs of the CWB as it transitions to a voluntary grain marketing organization. By assisting with the transition costs, the CWB will be better positioned to be a viable marketing alternative for farmers in the open wheat and barley market.
With regard to (f), the amounts were transferred in fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15.
With regard to (g), the department has conducted an economic analysis of a June 2008 study by Informa Economics. The Informa study examined the potential impact on farmers of an open marketing system for wheat, durum, and barley in western Canada.
With regard to (h), since Bill C-18, the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, has received royal assent, consultations with stakeholders are ongoing.
With regards to (i), (j), (k), and (l), this information is protected under subparagraph 21.(1)(e)(3) of the Canadian Wheat Board (Interim Operations) Act.

Question No. 883--
Mr. Robert Chisholm:
With regard to Employment Insurance, has the government conducted any assessments or evaluations of the reforms implemented in 2012 and, if so, (i) what are their titles and dates, (ii) will the government make them public?
Response
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regards to the employment insurance, EI, program, ESDC has not yet conducted any assessments or evaluations of the reforms implemented in 2012.
The EI program is evaluated through the employment insurance monitoring and assessment report on an annual basis. The most recent version of the report can be accessed at http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/reports/ei/monitoring2013/index.page

Question No. 885--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to all written questions on the Order Paper, submitted to date during the 41st Parliament, which received returns in the House of Commons from the government: (a) on what date was each question, with instructions to answer, forwarded by the Privy Council Office (PCO) to all relevant departments and agencies; (b) on what date did each department or agency receive and process the incoming request; (c) on what date did each department or agency return their respective answer to PCO; and (d) how many days did each department or agency require to complete each request for answer?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, during the 41st Parliament, more than 2,300 written questions have been placed on the order paper. The Privy Council Office, or PCO, analyzes each question and, when required, provides guidance and instructions to organizations assigned to provide a response.
Each assignment or set of instructions is developed as a result of consultations with implicated organizations. This process is iterative in nature, and as a result, assignments and instructions are modified as necessary. The dates of these modifications are not tracked in PCO information systems. In order to compile a response, an extensive manual search of records would be required. This search cannot be completed in the timeframe allotted to respond to this question.
PCO strives to assign questions and provide instructions as soon as possible to ensure that organizations have the maximum amount of time possible to produce a response.
With regard to part (b), organizations assigned to respond to each question receive the assignment notice and instructions immediately following the assignment by PCO.
With regard to part (c), in order to compile a response, an extensive manual search of records for more than 2,300 written questions would be required. This search cannot be completed in the timeframe allotted to respond to this question. For all questions for which a response was requested within 45 calendar days, PCO encourages organizations to return their answers at least five business days prior to the deadline for responding to the question.
With regard to part (d), the date on which each written question was placed on the notice, as well as the date of the response, can be found in the Status of House Business section on the Parliament of Canada website. It should be noted that when a member of Parliament requests a response within 45 calendar days, the deadline for responding to the question is not established until the question is transferred to the order paper.
In the case of the 41st Parliament, 1st session, members are referred to: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=status&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&File=12.
In the case of the 41st Parliament, 2nd session, members are referred to: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=status&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&File=12.

Question No. 886--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to the log books for personal use of ministerial executive vehicles: for each fiscal year since 2011-2012, (a) what is the total number of entries for each executive vehicle; (b) what are the dates, time and length for each entry; (c) what is the trip description, if any, of each entry; (d) what is the identification, if available, of the family member or member of the household that was the driver for each entry; and (e) what is the total kilometres travelled for personal use?
Response
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) to (d) of the question, the Privy Council Office, or PCO, has no information in regard to logbooks for the personal use of ministerial executive vehicles for each fiscal year since 2011-12. When processing Parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information has been withheld that could compromise the security of government officials or family members.

Question No. 889--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to Health Canada and drug shortages: (a) what is the compliance rate with the voluntary drug-shortage reporting recommendations; (b) what communications has the Department received from concerned health care providers, pharmacists, patients and caregivers related to drug shortages; and (c) what actions has the Department undertaken to respond to these concerns?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the current voluntary drug shortage reporting system, which can be seen at www.drugshortages.ca, was launched by industry associations in March 2012 in response to calls from the Minister of Health. This industry-funded and administered reporting website enables drug manufacturers and importers to provide public notification of shortages and discontinuances. As of November 2014, over 1000 shortages and discontinuances have been publicly reported by drug companies on the website.
Timely, comprehensive, and reliable drug shortage information is critical to the health and safety of Canadians. Drug companies have been reminded on several occasions of the federal government’s expectation that they provide public notification of all drug shortages. Health Canada also publicly issues letters of non-compliance to drug companies that fail to provide notification of anticipated or actual drug shortages. These letters are posted publicly on Health Canada’s website as part of the department’s ongoing efforts to improve drug supplier transparency and accountability for drug shortages and discontinuances.
Health Canada’s efforts to address drug shortages, and to improve shortage notification in particular, benefits greatly from the direct involvement of key stakeholders, including health care providers, pharmacists, and patient groups. From May 2014 to July 2014, Health Canada led extensive consultations on the voluntary notification system and on whether a voluntary or mandatory notification approach would be appropriate and effective for Canadian patients and those who care for them. Direct input was received from the Canadian public and a broad range of stakeholders, including provinces and territories, patient and consumer advocates, health care professionals, regional health authorities, drug companies, group purchasing organizations, distributors, wholesalers, importers, and international counterparts. With consultations now complete, Health Canada is analyzing the findings and assessing options to improve drug shortage notification in Canada so that Canadians have access to the timely, comprehensive, and reliable information they need.
Health Canada co-chairs the multi-stakeholder steering committee on drug shortages, MSSC, with the Province of British Columbia. The MSSC brings together representatives from provincial and territorial governments, industry, group purchasing organizations, distributors, and health professional associations in support of a more rigorous and coordinated approach to drug shortages. This comprehensive and collaborative approach recognizes that all levels of government and all stakeholders across the health care system have important and distinct roles to play in response to drug shortages. Reflecting the input provided by health care providers, pharmacists, patients, and other key stakeholders, the MSSC has made considerable progress to date, including the enhanced coordination of actual shortages and the development of concrete tools such as the MSSC Protocol for the Notification and Communication of Drug Shortages and the MSSC Multi-Stakeholder Toolkit, announced in September 2013. The MSSC is building on this momentum while focusing on identifying underlying causes and the prevention of drug shortages
Health Canada will continue to work with all key stakeholders across the drug supply and health care system, including patient and caregiver groups, to advance concrete action on improving the communication, management, and prevention of drug shortages.
As has been consistently communicated, the government is open to a mandatory reporting system if needed, especially if it will benefit patients.

Question No. 891--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
With regard to the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) advertisements: (a) how much money has been spent on these ads, broken down by (i) television, (ii) radio, (iii) internet; and (b) what are the internal tracking numbers of all documents, communications or briefing notes regarding the UCCB advertisements, broken down by (i) prior to the release of the ad, (ii) following the release of the ad?
Response
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the UCCB component is part of a broader campaign that highlights various proposed benefits to help Canadian families keep money into their pockets, such as the new family tax cut, the doubling of the children’s fitness tax credit and the Increasing of the child care deduction. However, at this time the Department of Finance is not able to determine the final costs for the campaign, as all invoices have not yet been received, verified, and paid. All advertising costs will be published in the annual report on advertising, available at http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-eng.html.
With regard to (b)(i), prior to the release of the ad, the tracking number is ADV#1415-0040/ 1415 0167/1415-0176/1415-0208/1415-0200.
With regard to (b)(ii), following the release of the ad, the tracking number is not available.

Question No. 911--
Ms. Charmaine Borg:
With regard to property No. 06872 in the Directory of Federal Real Property, also known as the Old St-Maurice Firing Range: (a) has the Department of National Defence estimated the total cost of decontaminating site No. 00008471 in the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory; and (b) how much is the total cost of decontaminating the site identified in (a)?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Department of National Defence has evaluated the cost for decontaminating site No. 00008471, located on property No. 06872.
With regard to (b), in processing Parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and this information has been withheld on the grounds that the information is related to economic interests of Canada and of federal Institutions.

Question No. 915--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With respect to Canada’s involvement in Iraq since September 2014: what are the direct costs, broken down by department or agency incurring the cost, which have been incurred, and are anticipated to be incurred by the end of the current fiscal year, relative to (a) the deployment of the Canadian Forces; (b) the deployment of Canadian F-18s; and (c) other costs?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, all elements, units, and organizations of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces involved in Iraq are required to capture incremental costs and charge expenses related to their tasks in accordance with the published financial directives and to report results through the Department of National Defence’s financial review process.
The costs of a mission are available through the regular parliamentary process, including the publication of the annual departmental performance report or within 90 days following the end of the mission.
Cost estimates are dynamic and evolve with the refinement of planning and operational requirements. Estimates are updated regularly to support planning efforts and decision-making, and therefore any estimate provided would be inaccurate.

Question No. 919--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With respect to the Public Service Health Care Plan for pensioners: (a) how many plan members were or are members of (i) the federal public service, (ii) the RCMP, (iii) the Canadian Forces, (iv) the Veterans Affairs client group; and (b) what will the pensioner contribution rate be for single person supplementary coverage as of (i) April 1, 2014, (ii) April 1, 2015, (iii) April 1, 2016, (iv) April 1, 2017, (v) April 1, 2018?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in managing the federal benefit plans in a way that is affordable, sustainable, and fair for both plan members and Canadian taxpayers, the Government of Canada noted in Economic Action Plan 2013 that it would examine overall employee compensation and pensioner benefit with a view to aligning federal compensation with other public and private sector employers. The government worked with and consulted key stakeholders, including retiree representatives, with a resulting negotiated settlement reached with retiree representatives and federal public sector unions.
The government health care plan is a voluntary program that retirees can opt into. To have this choice is a privilege. The benefits of the plan are generous, with coverage included for hospital beds and therapeutic mattresses, hearing aids, psychological services, and $15,000 a year in nursing services. Retired employees may choose to join the government program or elect to join in any number of alternative benefit plans available to Canadians. It should be noted that the provision of health care benefits to retired workers is the exception in Canada, not the rule. Most public and private sector employers in Canada do not provide health care benefits to employees after retirement, as alternative plans are available.
Previously, the costs of the federal benefit plan were subsidized by Canadian taxpayers, with retirees paying 25% of the plan costs and Canadian taxpayers 75% of the costs. As a result of the negotiations, the costs of the voluntary supplemental plan will be split evenly between retirees and Canadian taxpayers. Canadian taxpayers should be aware of the health care benefits that they subsidize as part of the federal public servants’ retirement benefit package. It should be noted that this negotiated agreement does not apply to low-income pensioners, who will not be subject to the 50:50 cost-sharing measures.
With regard to (a), as of November 30, 2014, the following is the breakdown of Public Service Health Care Plan pensioner member participation: with regard to (a)(i), the federal public service, based on pensioners in receipt of a pension under the Public Service Superannuation Act: 205,843; with regard to (a)(ii), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, based on pensioners in receipt of a pension under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act): 16,171; with regard to (a)(iii), the Canadian Forces, based on pensioners in receipt of a pension under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act: 80,469; with regard to (a)(iv), the Veterans Affairs client group: 2,179.
With regard to (b), the pensioner contribution rate for a single member with supplementary coverage can be found at: http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/index.php?hl=1&lang=eng&merge=2&sid=87
An exception is that a new PSHCP pensioner supplementary relief rate will be introduced effective April 1, 2015, and will be available at the above-mentioned site on January 30, 2015. The new provision is only available to those pensioners enrolled in the PSHCP on or before March 31, 2015, and requires an application to be submitted to the pensioner’s respective pension office. Following receipt of an application, eligibility is contingent upon the pensioner being in receipt of a guaranteed income supplement, GIS, benefit or having a single or joint net income that is lower than the applicable GIS thresholds in effect on the date application is received.
The pensioner contribution rates for a single member approved for the supplementary relief provision effective April 1, 2015 will be available on January 30, 2015, at the above-mentioned site.
Contribution rates are calculated based on plan experience. As a result, the rates for (b)(iii), April 1, 2016, (b)(iv), April 1, 2017, and (b)(v), April 1, 2018, have not yet been determined. It is anticipated that the rates for April 1, 2016, will be established in early 2016. Similarly, it is anticipated that the rates for April 1, 2017, will be established in early 2017 and that the rates for April 1, 2018, will be established in early 2018.

Question No. 932--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada: (a) what funding has been spent since January 2013, including the 2013 Budget and up to today, fulfilling the promise within the 2013 Speech from the Throne about providing seniors with access to information about government programs and services such as, but not limited to, Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Allowance and the Allowance for a Survivor, Canada Pension Plan and, in each case, (i) what are the funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees provided, (ii) what is the monetary value of the funding, (iii) what is the location and organization or group given the funding, (iv) what is the specific purpose of the funding; (b) what oversight mechanism has been put in place to ensure funding in order to provide seniors increased access to information about the aforementioned programs; and (c) what detailed plans have been articulated in writing by the government to improve access to information about seniors’ programs for seniors who rely on door-to-door mail delivery, (i) what is the timeframe in which seniors will have increased information about seniors’ programs as a replacement for door-to-door delivery, (ii) what is the expected cost of any such plans, (iii) what input has the government received from seniors regarding their need to greater access to information on these programs?
Response
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, ESDC is not in a position to respond to the question in a specific way within the time allotted. However, in general, ESDC is committed to providing seniors with information about government programs and services.
The department has implemented budget and Speech from the Throne commitments by taking a number of steps to improve seniors’ access to benefits. They include enhancing mobile services to better reach seniors where they live; ensuring clients have easier access to the information they need on the web, by phone, and in person through the Service Canada network; increasing the number of applications that are sent proactively to Canadians before they turn 65 of age; and reorganizing and rewriting the pension-related pages on the Service Canada website using a plain language perspective to better explain the retirement income system in Canada and improve access to the Canada pension plan, CPP, and the old age security, OAS, pensions and benefits.
Through inserts with tax slips for CPP or OAS benefits, we advise seniors on how to access information on the full range of benefits available to them. In 2013, we sent out 7.2 million tax inserts.
Between April 2013 and March 2014, Service Canada mobile outreach services delivered 1,774 information sessions to 22,490 senior citizens and caregivers, community groups, and service delivery partners across the country.
Service Canada also mails application forms for CPP and OAS benefits or the renewal of guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, and the allowances to many senior Canadians. In 2013-14, Service Canada mailed OAS application forms to approximately 250,000 individuals who recently turned 64 years old. A CPP retirement application was also included for individuals not yet in receipt of CPP Retirement benefits. An additional 10,000 CPP application forms were sent to individuals who recently turned 64 and were not in pay for CPP, but for whom an application for OAS had already been received. As well, 138,605 individuals received automatic enrolment letters instead of an application form. Most of these individuals will not need to apply for their OAS pension. Approximately 50,000 applications for the GIS and allowances were sent to individuals who may be eligible, based on Canada Revenue Agency income.
Service Canada has also introduced a landing page on the Internet devoted to content of particular interest to seniors at servicecanada.gc.ca. This page is continually updated with new information of interest to seniors.
In addition to the above, automatic enrolment of OAS beneficiaries using existing information on their CPP and Quebec pension plan began in April 2013 and was fully implemented in October 2013.
As of November 2014, Service Canada has sent automatic enrolment letters to notify individuals that they will be put into pay for their OAS benefit without having to apply. It is estimated that the first 130,000 of these individuals will have been put into pay at the age of 65 by the end of 2014-15.
Aboriginal peoplesAboriginal reservesAcademic achievement and school performanceAccess to informationAccountabilityAdministrative Monetary Penalty SystemAdvertisingAglukkaq, LeonaAir defenceAlbertaAlexander, Chris ...Show all topics
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 552--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the backdrops used by the government for announcements since June 19, 2012: for each backdrop purchased, what was (a) the date (i) the tender was issued for the backdrop, (ii) the contract was signed, (iii) the backdrop was delivered; (b) the cost of the backdrop; (c) the announcement for which the backdrop was used; (d) the department that paid for the backdrop; and (e) the date or dates the backdrop was used?
Response
(Return tabled)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 582--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the use of government-issued credit cards by Ministerial exempt staff, for each Minister since May 31, 2012: (a) how many Ministerial exempt staff failed to pay the amount owing within the required time frame; (b) for each case identified in (a), (i) what is the name of the Ministerial exempt staff member, (ii) what was the amount owing; (c) how many Ministerial exempt staff used government-issued credit cards for non-governmental business; (d) for each case identified in (c), (i) what is the name of the Ministerial exempt staff member, (ii) what specific transactions were made and for what amounts; (e) how much has the government had to pay to cover the delinquent accounts of Ministerial exempt staff; and (f) of the amount in (e) how much has the government recovered from the relevant Ministerial exempt staff members?
Response
(Return tabled)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 626--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to the administration of the Access to Information Act: for each institution subject to the Act, what are, for each year since 2006 inclusive, (i) the total number of requests received, (ii) the number of requests by institution that were subject to an extension notice, broken down by particular paragraph of subsection 9(1) of the Act, (iii) the reasons for the extension other than those indicated in subsection 9(1), specifying those other reasons?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 628--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to the government’s announcement, in July 2013, to provide an additional 1300 places for the resettlement of those displaced by the Syrian Civil War by the end of 2014: for fiscal years 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 inclusive, (a) how many Syrian nationals whose refugee claims stem from the Syrian Civil War have been resettled in Canada, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) country of residence at time of application, (iii) type of sponsorship (government or private) (iv) current place of residence in Canada; (b) how many applications for resettlement have been denied, broken down by reason for denial; (c) for both categories of sponsorship ,government and private, for Syrian nationals, beginning from the date that the case was referred to the Canadian Embassy by either the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) or the sponsoring organization, what was the average wait time for processing applications, broken down by (i) fiscal year for 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, (ii) country of residence at time of the submission of resettlement claim, (iii) type of sponsorship; (d) what was the average wait time for resettlement of approved resettlement applications for both categories of sponsorship, government and private, for Syrian nationals, broken down by (i) fiscal year for 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, (ii) country of residence at time of the submission of resettlement claim, (iii) type of sponsorship; (e) what is the total number of government-sponsored resettlement applications for Syrian nationals submitted by the UNHCR to Canada since 2011, broken down by (i) fiscal year for 2011 to 2014, (ii) current country of residence or country of residence at time of application, (iii) due cause for resettlement as defined by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Additional Protocols; (f) what criteria is used by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) to prioritize the claims referred to in (e); (g) how many of the cases referred to in (e) did Canada request from UNHCR in 2013-2014 and how many cases was UNHCR able to refer; (h) how many of the cases referred to in (e) does the government plan to request in 2014-2015; (i) how many of the cases referred to in (e) does the government anticipate will come from UNHCR;(j) what is the total number of pending applications or applications under review for resettlement of Syrian nationals submitted by private sponsorship Agreement Holders, Groups of Five, Community sponsors, or individual private sponsors, broken down by (i) year for 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, (ii) type of sponsor, (iii) geographical location of sponsor in Canada, (iv) due cause for resettlement as defined by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Additional Protocols, (v) current country of residence of candidates for resettlement; (k) how many Full Time Equivalent staff was allocated within CIC for processing of the government’s announced additional places for Syrian nationals in fiscal years 2011 to 2014 inclusive, for all categories of sponsorship (government or private), and what was the geographical distribution of these allocations; (l) what was the budget for processing all categories of resettlement claims for Syrian nationals from 2011 to 2014, broken down by (i) fiscal year for 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, (ii) processing centre; (m) how does CIC allocate applications for resettlement of Syrian nationals given the announced 1300 additional places for those displaced as a result of the Syrian Civil War; (n) how many places are prioritized for private sponsorship and for government sponsorship; (o) has the Office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or CIC made any arrangements with (i) non-UNHCR partners,i.e. non-governmental organizations, including, but not limited to, the Norwegian Refugee Council and the Jesuit Refugee Services, (ii) international governmental organizations, including but not limited to, the International Society for the Red Cross/Red Crescent and the International Organization for Migration, (iii) with on the ground capacity in Syria or any other regional states including but not limited to Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, to help identify resettlement candidates or conduct Refugee Status Determination procedures for Syrian nationals for resettlement to Canada under the government’s announced 1300 additional places; (p) how were thespartners in (o) identified, (ii) what are the terms of reference for these partnerships; (q) are there any plans to expand to additional on- the- ground partners; and (r) has the Minister’s Office or the CIC began engage in three-way partnerships among the government of Canada, the UNHCR, and private sponsors who are sponsorship Agreement Holders (SAHs) to facilitate the arrival of Syrian refugees and is the government of Canada prepared to provide up to six months of income support through the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 630--
Ms. Charmaine Borg:
With regard to requests by government agencies to telecommunications service providers (TSPs) to provide information about customers' usage of communications devices and services: (a) between 2001 and 2013, how many such requests were made; (b) of the total referred to in (a), how many requests were made by the (i) RCMP, (ii) Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (iii) Competition Bureau, (iv) Canada Revenue Agency, (v) Canada Border Services Agency, (vi) Communications Security Establishment Canada; (c) for the requests referred to in (a), how many of each of the following types of information were requested, (i) geolocation of device, broken down by real-time and historical data, (ii) call detail records, as obtained by number recorders or by disclosure of stored data, (iii) text message content, (iv) voicemail, (v) cell tower logs, (vi) real-time interception of communications (i.e. wire-tapping), (vii) subscriber information, (viii) transmission data (e.g. duration of interaction, port numbers, communications routing data, etc.), (ix) data requests (e.g. web sites visited, IP address logs), (x) any other kinds of data requests pertaining to the operation of TSPs' networks and businesses, broken down by type; (d) for each of the request types referred to in (c), what are all of the data fields that are disclosed as part of responding to a request; (e) of the total referred to in (a), how many of the requests were made (i) for real-time disclosures, (ii) retroactively, for stored data, (iii) in exigent circumstances, (iv) in non-exigent circumstances, (v) subject to a court order; (f) of the total referred to in (a), (i) how many of the requests did TSPs fulfill, (ii) how many requests did they deny and for what reasons; (g) do the government agencies that request information from TSPs notify affected TSP subscribers that information pertaining to their telecommunications service has been requested or accessed by the government, (i) if so, how many subscribers are notified per year, (ii) by which government agencies; (h) for each type of request referred to in (c), broken down by agency, (i) how long is the information obtained by such requests retained by government agencies, (ii) what is the average time period for which government agencies request such information (e.g. 35 days of records), (iii) what is the average amount of time that TSPs are provided to fulfill such requests, (iv) what is the average number of subscribers who have the their information disclosed to government agencies; (i) what are the legal standards that agencies use to issue the requests for information referred to in (c); (j) how many times were the requests referred to in (c) based specifically on grounds of (i) terrorism, (ii) national security, (iii) foreign intelligence, (iv) child exploitation; (k) what is the maximum number of subscribers that TSPs are required by government agencies to monitor for each of the information types identified in (c); (l) has the government ever ordered (e.g. through ministerial authorization or a court order) the increase of one of the maximum numbers referred to in (k); (m) do TSPs ever refuse to comply with requests for information identified in (c) and, if so, (i) why were such requests refused, (ii) how do government agencies respond when a TSP refuses to comply; (n) between 2001 and 2013, did government agencies provide money or other forms of compensation to TSPs in exchange for the information referred to in (a) and, if so, (i) how much money have government agencies paid, (ii) are there different levels of compensation for exigent or non-exigent requests; (o) for the requests referred to in (a), how many users, accounts, IP addresses and individuals were subject to disclosure; (p) for the requests referred to in (a), how many were made without a warrant; (q) do the government agencies that request information from TSPs keep internal aggregate statistics on these type of requests and the kind of information requested; and (r) do the government agencies that request information from TSPs notify individuals when the law allows or after investigations are complete that their information has been requested or disclosed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 636--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to government telecommunications, what is the total amount of late-payment charges incurred in each month since January 2012 inclusive, in respect of: (a) cellular telephone service; and (b) service for all other wireless devices other than cellular telephones, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) service provider?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 638--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 2010, c. 23: (a) what promotional and outreach activities has the government undertaken to inform businesses and organizations about their obligations under the Act; (b) what is the total cost of each activity; (c) what is the cost of each activity per province; (d) what is the estimated audience of each activity; (e) how many businesses or organizations are estimated to be impacted by the anti-spam law; and (f) what assessments has the government done about the readiness of organizations to comply with the law, and what are the file numbers, dates, titles, and results of those assessments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 640--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to the RCMP: for each recommendation made by Assistant Chief Judge Daniel R. Pahl in his report dated March 3, 2011, made under the Alberta Fatality Inquiries Act, concerning the shooting deaths of four members of the RCMP on March 3, 2005, (a) what measures, if any, has the RCMP or government taken in response to each recommendation; (b) when were those measures taken; and (c) if no measures have been taken in response to a particular recommendation, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 642--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in Yukon, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 643--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in Nunavut, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 644--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the Northwest Territories, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-412-233 Communications devices8555-412-233-01 Communications devices8555-412-263 Order Paper questions8555-412-328 Contracts8555-412-328-01 Contracts8555-412-493 Spending in Joliette8555-412-494 Skills Link Program8555-412-495 Funding of First Nations ed ...8555-412-497 Material related to judicia ...8555-412-500 Canadian Commercial Corporation8555-412-501 Salmon farming ...Show all topics
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, they do not listen to anyone, and that is the problem.
We have ever-changing stories from the Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice.
When the decision of the Supreme Court came down, the Prime Minister claimed he was “very surprised” but this week he tells us he knew all along.
The Conservatives have targeted Kevin Page, Sheila Fraser, Marc Mayrand and now even the Chief Justice. In short, any eminent Canadian who disagrees with them.
Why has the Prime Minister gone so far out of his way to pick a fight with the Supreme Court of Canada?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court warned the Conservative government in July that Justice Nadon's appointment would be problematic.
As we know, the Prime Minister decided to do what he wanted and appointed Justice Nadon anyway.
Does the Prime Minister realize that without his stubbornness, we would not have wasted so much time and money? Furthermore, we would have avoided a battle with Quebec and last night's crisis caused by the prime minister's office attacking the Chief Justice in a very inappropriate manner.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice deserves better than these attacks.
The Chief Justice states that she did not try to contact the Prime Minister while the matter was before the courts, but in an unprecedented, and frankly petulant, statement released late last night, the Prime Minister's Office implies that the Chief Justice did just that.
This statement from the PMO was clearly inappropriate. Will the Prime Minister explain why he has launched this attack on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and will he stop his inappropriate petulant attacks?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Supreme Court quite rightly checked the power of the PMO and ruled that the Prime Minister cannot ignore the law or unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution.
Unfortunately, not all Conservative members understood what was going on. One took to social media to say that by interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court was undermining our “system of checks and balances in Canada”.
For the benefit of my Conservative colleagues, let me explain. The Supreme Court interprets laws passed by Parliament based on a document called the Constitution, and in particular the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That Conservatives do not understand the role the court plays in protecting provincial jurisdiction and individual rights is, at best, disturbing.
Canadians deserve better.
Results: 1 - 6 of 6

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data