Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 23
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 2439--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the Visitor Welcome Centre complex on Parliament Hill: (a) in what year were the plans for both the current Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex first included in the Long Term Vision and Plan or, if the year pre-dates the Long Term Vision and Plan, in previous long term plans for the Parliamentary Precinct, including the identity of the applicable Parliamentary Precinct plan; (b) what body or bodies (i.e. Parliamentary Precinct Branch, elements of the Parliamentary Partners, Parliamentary Precinct Oversight Advisory Committee, architectural consultants, other bodies, etc.) first recommended the footprint and current plan for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex; (c) did the Parliamentary Precinct Oversight Advisory Committee provide the Parliamentary Precinct Branch, the Minister of Public Works, or any other organization, with recommendations or observations with respect to the Visitor Welcome Centre complex, including dates, recipients, and details of those recommendations or observations; (d) what is the approval milestone record for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex plan, including the dates on which, and the mechanisms through which, approvals were granted and funding was appropriated; (e) when are reports respecting deficiencies in construction, engineering, design and architecture of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex provided to the Parliamentary Precinct Branch, and when and to what extent is the information contained in those reports provided to other partner organizations; (f) when Phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex is completed, how many public entrances and exits will exist, where will they be located, and what will be each one’s capacity, relative to the others; (g) with respect to Phase 1 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex, when Phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex is completed, will the function of Phase 1 as the main visitor entrance and screening point remain the same, or will its functions be relocated, expanded, or replicated elsewhere in the complex; (h) with respect to the services presently located in Phase 1 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex, including visitor security screening, the Parliamentary Boutique, and other visitor services, when Phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex is completed, (i) what will be the disposition of those services, (ii) will they be replicated in multiple locations, (iii) will they be expanded, (iv) will they be relocated, (v) where will they be expanded, relocated, or replicated, as applicable; (i) what is the currently projected completion date and cost estimate for Phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex; (j) what funds, and for what purposes, have already been expended on Phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex; (k) with respect to contracts that have been engaged for Phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex, (i) how many contracts have been engaged or signed, (ii) what is the value of each contract, (iii) what parties are subject to each contract, (iv) what is the purpose and function of each contract, (v) when was each contract engaged or signed, (vi) what is the termination date or milestone of each contract, (vii) what are the penalties for premature termination or alteration of each contract; (l) what are the formal mechanisms or instruments through which the Parliamentary Precinct Branch receives authoritative direction, recommendations, advice, approvals, or other feedback from (i) the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, (ii) the Treasury Board Secretariat, (iii) the Cabinet, (iv) the House of Commons, (v) the Senate of Canada, (vi) the Library of Parliament, (vii) the Parliamentary Protective Service, (viii) any other body; and (m) with respect to the formal mechanisms or instruments referred to in (l), what are the details of each communication received by the Parliamentary Precinct Branch respecting Phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre complex from each source listed in (l) since 2001, including for each instance the (i) date, (ii) source, (iii) recipient(s), (iv) subject matter, (v) description, (vi) mechanism or instrument used to convey it?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2440--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to “March madness” expenditures where the government makes purchases before the end of the fiscal year so that departmental funds do not go “unspent”, broken down by department agency or other government entity: (a) what were the total expenditures during February and March of 2019 on (i) materials and supplies (standard object 07), (ii) acquisition of machinery and equipment, including parts and consumable tools (standard object 09); and (b) what are the details of each such expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) description of goods or services provided, including quantity (v) delivery date, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2441--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to government expenditures on membership fees, broken down by department, agency and Crown corporation, since April 1, 2018: (a) how much has been spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) name of organization or vendor, (ii) date of purchase, (iii) amount spent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2443--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to “repayable” loans and contributions given out by the government since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such loans and contributions, including (i) date of loan or contribution, (ii) recipient’s details, including name and location, (iii) amount provided, (iv) amount “repaid” to date, (v) description or project or purpose of loan or contribution, (vi) program under which loan or contribution was administered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2444--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to management consulting contracts signed by the government since June 1, 2018, broken down by department, agency, and Crown corporation: (a) what was the total amount spent; (b) for each contract, what was the (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) file number; (c) each time a management consultant was brought in, what was the desired outcome or goals; (d) how does the government measure whether or not the goals in (c) were met; (e) does the government have any recourse if the goals in (c) were not met; (f) for which contracts were the goals met; and (g) for which contracts were the goals not met?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2447--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to government procurement and contracts for the provision of research or speech writing services to ministers, since June 1, 2017: (a) what are the details of contracts, including (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work, (v) value of contract; and (b) in the case of a contract for speech writing, what is the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be delivered, (iv) number of speeches to be written, (v) cost charged per speech?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2448--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to expenditures on consultants, since January 1, 2018: what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) date and duration of contract, (iv) type of consultant, (v) reason or purpose consultant was utilized?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2449--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to individuals who have illegally or “irregularly” crossed the Canadian border, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many such individuals have been subject to deportation or a removal order; and (b) of the individuals in (a) how many (i) remain in Canada, (ii) have been deported or removed from Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2450--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to all contracts awarded by the government since January 1, 2018, broken down by department or agency: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to a foreign firm, individual, business, or other entity with a mailing address outside of Canada; (b) for each contract in (a), what is the (i) name of vendor, (ii) country of mailing address, (iii) date of contract, (iv) summary or description of goods or services provided, (v) file or tracking number; and (c) for each contract in (a), was the contract awarded competitively or sole sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2451--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the $327 million announced by the government in November 2017 to combat gun and gang violence: (a) what specific initiatives or organizations have received funding from the $327 million, as of April 29, 2019; (b) what is the total of all funding referenced in (a); and (c) broken down by initiative and organization, what are the details of all funding received as of June 1, 2018, including the (i) name, (ii) project description, (iii) amount, (iv) date of the announcement, (v) duration of the project or program funded by the announcement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2453--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to cabotage or coasting trade licenses granted by the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Transport: (a) how many cabotage or coasting trade licenses were granted to foreign vessels in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, (iii) 2018; and (b) what is the breakdown of the licenses granted in (a) by (i) country of registration, (ii) tonnage of vessel?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2019-06-05 16:51 [p.28596]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 96th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding amendments to the Standing Orders concerning the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and oversight of the Centre Block rehabilitation project, as well as the long-term vision and plan.
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2016-10-06 10:45 [p.5562]
Mr. Speaker, as we are talking about changing the Standing Orders, this is one problem that could be addressed. We only have 10 minutes at the start of this debate compared with 20 minutes for others. Maybe that is something to bear in mind.
As deputy House leader for the NDP, I am pleased to rise today and talk about the discussions we have been having within the NDP team for a number of years now on changes to the Standing Orders of the House. I welcome this opportunity to talk about two aspects in particular.
We hear a lot about work-life balance. That is very important to all of us, across party lines. When we talk about the Standing Orders, despite the pleas we heard this morning from some members, primarily Liberal, there is unfortunately an element of partisanship involved, because we are also talking about democracy, accountability, and how to reform the tools at our disposal.
As I said earlier, the opposition and government benches are two sword lengths apart, and there is a reason for that. However, we can still make an effort to improve decorum and the conduct of members. At the end of the day, we need to work in an environment that Canadians can count on to get clear answers and accountability from the government, and to feel reassured that we are doing our job.
I would like to begin by mentioning a few improvements that have already been made, because our main problem here in the House of Commons is that it is 2016, but we are working in an environment from the 20th century. Consider, for example, the fact that it was only recently, in the last decade, that a women's washroom was installed near the entrance to the members' lobby and diaper changing stations were put in the men's washrooms. These are all important details and examples that show just how far behind the times we are. We have a lot of catching up to do.
Nonetheless, some improvements have been made. For example, there is reserved parking for new parents, new mothers and new fathers, so that they can park closer to the House when there are votes or debates. As we all know, our schedule can be quite tight, so having reserved parking is very helpful. We also know that there is a family room in Centre Block now. It provides a space for new mothers to nurse their babies. That is an excellent start. That room could also be used for new parents who want to take a break with their children, their spouse, or even with a child care provider or another family member, depending on their family situation. It is very important to note that regardless of the family situation, age, or gender, all hon. members should feel welcome to use that room. That is something we could address in our discussions today.
I also want to mention some minor details that might seem trivial to the general public. Having highchairs available in the Centre Block cafeteria is appreciated. This is the type of thing we worked on with the other parties, the teams from the official opposition and the government. These are concrete measures that we were able to put in place.
We are all familiar with the experience of some female MPs. I am thinking about my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, and, in the last Parliament, MPs such as Rosane Doré Lefebvre, who was the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan, and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, who was the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. They all became new mothers while in office and remained extremely dedicated MPs. As their colleagues, we learned from their experience what measures needed to be taken to improve work-life balance in Parliament.
We do not need to stop there. When I heard the member for Yukon speak, who is also the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee and has helped lead the excellent work that the committee has done in getting the ball rolling on this debate, he mentioned other installations and infrastructure that could be set up as the renovations happen in Centre Block.
These are all things we need to be open to because we should not content ourselves with less; we need to do more. As I said, we are an institution that is sometimes stuck in the Mad Men era of the 20th century. As some would say, it is 2016 and we need to arrive at that in the way that we treat other members, our colleagues, and ourselves, which is extremely important.
To that end, when it comes to juggling family and work, we do have certain proposals, some of which will echo the proposals made by my Conservative colleague earlier, but which also echo the recommendations that were in the report that was tabled by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which to us reflects a certain consensus that exists on some of the easy things we can do to keep this ball rolling and to keep taking these positive steps that we have begun taking.
First and foremost is formalizing the habit we now have of having votes immediately after question period. It is something that started in this current Parliament and has spared us some of the long, late night hours that we experienced in the previous Parliament and before that. Regardless of our personal situations, it is gruelling on us all. This is certainly something that we should include now officially in the Standing Orders, barring certain exceptions that can come up. It is something that we can easily formalize and seems to be something that already, despite being relatively informal and based on the motions that we have to adopt every single time through unanimous consent, has that consent. Why not make it formal and avoid having to do it every time?
My colleague from Yukon also raised the issue of Thursday votes. We understand that a debate must take place on Friday, but we believe that there are other solutions to be considered before we abolish it. We believe that we must be here as much as possible to hold the government to account, but we also know that some members live further away and must leave Thursday. We recognize that they must leave whether or not Friday is on the calendar.
I am lucky to live a two-hour train ride away. It is very easy for those of us who live so close, but most of my colleagues have very long and complicated trips. Knowing that there would not be a vote at inconvenient times, such as late Thursday or Friday, they would be free to plan their trips and their personal or family life, whether it was medical appointments or other things that complicate travel.
I find these things very complicated and my situation is relatively easy compared to that of my colleagues. We can therefore empathize with them and admit that we could formalize certain rules about votes to make life easier for them.
To repeat once more the comments of my Conservative colleague, we are also proposing that the calendar be adopted earlier, in June rather than in September. It would make it easier to plan our vacations. We know that winter break weeks are not the same in all provinces. Will a family go down south during the March break? We need to know when the children are in school. It would help us get organized if the calendar were officially adopted in June rather than September.
Finally, we currently accept this practice de facto , but it goes without saying that it must be officially incorporated into the Standing Orders. Let us allow children, particularly those of nursing age, in the House of Commons. It is very difficult for new mothers to nurse their child during a vote, for example. Even if no one questions the practice anymore, it should still be incorporated into the Standing Orders.
I did say at the outset that while we talk about juggling family lives and our own personal situations, we also have to talk about accountability on the part of the government. It is unfortunate that despite wanting to be non-partisan, we have to accept the adversarial nature of this place.
As I mentioned in a question to the member for Yukon, there are some stories, such as the face palm heard around the world from my former colleague, Paul Dewar, that recall there are often answers that leave a lot to be desired. When we talk about reforming question period, we see the government House leader's mandate letter, which calls on the Prime Minister and ministers to be more accountable. If we as opposition members are going to have burdens on the questions that we ask in terms of how they relate to government business, there should be a burden placed on the answers from the government that they be relevant to the question asked and of a certain substance. I think that goes without saying and that is what Canadians would expect of question period.
It will certainly make the hour we spend here more productive, and dare I say, hopefully restore Canadians' confidence in what is the theatre of what happens here and nonetheless a rare opportunity for members to ask the important questions of the day. That also applies as well to Order Paper questions with again, stories that have come to light in the media recently. It also has to do with omnibus legislation.
Of course, there is also the matter of time allocation and closure motions, which were a bad habit of the previous government. The current government seems to be back on the right track. The use of these types of motions is less frequent now than it was in the spring. However, the fact remains that we need to limit or ban the use of these tools for the good of democracy.
There needs to be a better balance between work and family and between democracy and accountability. In my opinion, that would make for a better Parliament for both members and Canadians.
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
2016-02-19 11:10 [p.1129]
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight Heritage Day.
Heritage Day, the third Monday in February, encourages Canadian citizens to preserve and promote Canada's historic, architectural, natural, and spectacular heritage.
Outside the House we can see the magnificent and extensive work done to update and preserve the West Block.
Our Parliament Buildings are a national historic site and symbols of our cherished democracy. For this reason, and as a former parliamentary guide, I wish to recognize the efforts of the Department of Public Services and Procurement in rehabilitating and preserving our Parliament Buildings and our important heritage treasures for all Canadians.
I also salute the department's collaborative work with all of its partners, including the institutions of Parliament, in ensuring these buildings meet the needs of the 21st century.
As Canada's 150th anniversary approaches, I invite all of my colleagues to celebrate our heritage on Heritage Day.
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
NDP (QC)
View Thomas Mulcair Profile
2015-06-15 14:19 [p.15061]
Mr. Speaker, it is a full 90 metres, so that does mean $270,000 of taxpayers' money per senator's step, just so she can help with her calculations.
At least four senators named by the Prime Minister have now been caught lying about where they live. The Prime Minister does not care what provinces they actually lived in; he was only interested in using them as shills and fundraisers for the Conservative Party. In fact, the Prime Minister once said that senators “don't represent anybody but the prime minister who appoints them”.
Why did the Prime Minister appoint this bunch to represent him?
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2015-06-15 14:20 [p.15061]
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is completely delusional if he thinks that Canadians will ever give him the opportunity to serve on this side of the House while he refuses to respect the fact that he owes them $2.7 million.
If Canadians cannot trust him to ethically manage his own office budget, there is no way they will ever trust him to ethically manage the budget of the entire country. I certainly hope it will not take 17 years for him to do the right thing.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2015-05-12 10:54 [p.13765]
Mr. Speaker, my comments will be somewhat brief. I have the good fortune of being the Liberal Party's representative on the procedures and House affairs committee and have had the opportunity to deal with this. It is an issue that has come before PROC relatively recently. We have had the Commissioner of the RCMP and many different security personnel come, including the former sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers. Listening to what was said, both publicly and in camera, members will find that members of Parliament of all political stripes treat the issue of privilege and access to the parliamentary precinct in a very serious fashion.
The House of Commons deals with the passage of laws, the making of budgets, and different programs. There are very important debates that take place in this House and obviously many important votes. A member having a sense that he or she has access at any time is of critical importance. No one wants to see delays that would prevent members from getting into the chamber in a timely fashion.
In listening to the discussions at PROC in dealing with this, I was of the opinion that there was a great deal of general good will to try to improve the system.
When this particular issue of privilege was raised, I stated that if we are going to err, it is better to err on the side of having to review this once again as opposed to not taking this issue seriously. That is the reason I am quite comfortable and pleased with the Speaker's ruling that this matter be debated once again and voted on and then, hopefully, go to the procedures and House affairs committee.
My concern is that if it goes to the procedures and House affairs committee, we will get different presenters to come before the committee and provide input as to where we go from here, and I am not convinced that this the best course of action. We could be looking at ways we can actually develop a process with which all members are comfortable.
I am not convinced that people are comfortable with the process. If members of Parliament are not comfortable with the process, I suspect that there is a greater likelihood that we will have points of privilege in the future. We need to establish that process or protocol so that all members feel comfortable that they do indeed have access.
There needs to be coordination at the security level. We recognize the importance of security, for obvious reasons, here on the Hill and in the parliamentary precinct. However, there has to be a balance, recognizing that it is of utmost importance that members of Parliament have unfettered access to attend the House of Commons in a timely fashion. It goes beyond just the floor; it also includes committee responsibilities and so on.
I understand that there are issues that could be discussed at PROC with the idea of seeing if we can come up with a unanimous report on how to put this issue to rest.
I recognize that there are major renovations that have been taking place over the last number of years. Some of those renovations have led to the problems we have had. However, there are going to be a great many more renovations in the future, which may impact state visits and what takes place here on the Hill. My colleague from Ottawa has raised issues as well.
I suspect that there could be a great deal of value in caucuses, along with independents, having an opportunity to convey their concerns. Perhaps members who have an interest in the issue may be invited to participate at the PROC meeting.
When we look at what takes place inside the House, including the making of laws, the passing of budgets, and the many different votes that take place, we recognize how important it is that members of Parliament have the right to have access. Therefore, it is very important that we do what we can to protect that right.
On a side point, I would suggest that this is not a reflection whatsoever of the fantastic work all the different security forces do to provide a safe environment here on the Hill. They are outstanding in what they do for us, but we need to take a better look and come up with a process we are all comfortable with.
At the end of the day, we should feel comfortable that if there is a need to get into the chamber, MPs will be afforded the opportunity to get here as quickly and directly as possible for the many different meetings, whether they are in MPs' offices, the Confederation Building, the Valour Building, or the justice buildings. MPs need to feel comfortable knowing that they can get here in a timely fashion without being stopped and detained, which could ultimately lead to an MP missing a vote or an opportunity to contribute to a debate.
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 Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I did not ask about the Minister of Canadian Heritage's values. I asked him whether someone recommended that Saulie Zajdel be hired.
Let us move on to another topic. Every day, we learn that another Conservative is being investigated by the RCMP. Hubert Pichet, a former Conservative candidate and a former aide to Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin, is being investigated by the RCMP for the role he played in the awarding of a contract to renovate the West Block on Parliament Hill.
Has the PMO contacted Senator Nolin to find out why his former aide allegedly used his position to try to influence the awarding of a public contract?
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
NDP (QC)
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2013-06-18 14:30 [p.18541]
Mr. Speaker, I know it is hard to keep track of all the criminal investigations into members of the Conservatives' entourage. I just want to make sure the minister is following.
I will stop talking about the arrest of the Minister of Canadian Heritage's former assistant and start talking about the RCMP investigation into Senator Nolin's former assistant.
Did the Minister of Public Works and Government Services ever have a discussion with Hubert Pichet about a $9 million contract for renovating the West Block tower?
View Jacques Gourde Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, senior officials at Public Works and Government Services Canada have clearly stated that there was no political interference in the awarding of that contract. Anyone who is found guilty of wrongdoing will face the consequences. Public servants are responsible for managing the entire process, including the awarding of contracts.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2013-06-18 14:32 [p.18541]
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that it is not just the Prime Minister and key Conservative senators who are being investigated by the police right now. Yesterday, a key political adviser to the minister of heritage was arrested for corruption. Today we have a Conservative staffer who has also been arrested and charged on the issue of the West Block scandal.
My question is simple. Did any minister or any staff from the Prime Minister's Office ever discuss the West Block renovation project with Senator Nolin's staffer, Hubert Pichet?
View Marc Garneau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the list of Conservatives under police investigation just keeps on growing. Now we have learned that Hubert Pichet, a former employee of Conservative Senator Nolin, is under investigation in relation to Parliament building renovations. However, two years ago, ministers opposite assured us that there had been no political interference in that file.
Why did they hide the truth for two years? Can they assure us that they will co-operate fully with the RCMP?
View Jacques Gourde Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, senior officials at Public Works and Government Services Canada have clearly stated that there was no political interference in the awarding of that contract.
Anyone who is found guilty of wrongdoing will face the consequences.
Public servants are responsible for managing the entire process, including the awarding of contracts.
Results: 1 - 15 of 23 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Show both languages
Refine Your Search
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data