Journals
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 12815
2011-03-25 [p.1427]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance:
Q-947 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With respect to programs for young families: (a) how many new programs were introduced and how much money was spent by the government since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date (i) across Canada, (ii) by province; (b) which departments were responsible for program administration; (c) how much money was allocated to programs addressing the needs of young families (i) by department, (ii) by province; (d) how many programs for young families were finished and were not renewed since 2006 to date; and (e) how much money was spent for initiatives to support young families under the Canada Economic Action Plan each fiscal year since 2007-2008 to date (i) in total amount by year, (ii) by province?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1427]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:
Q-948 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to bonuses granted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: (a) how many bonuses were dispersed, broken down by (i) fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (ii) individual personnel, (iii) region, (iv) departmental division; and (b) what was the amount of the bonuses broken down by (i) fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (ii) individual personnel, (iii) region, (iv) departmental division?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1428]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance:
Q-949 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1428]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance:
Q-950 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Timmins—James Bay for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1428]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Health:
Q-951 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), the liberation treatment, and multiple sclerosis (MS): (a) what consensus documents have been published regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, (i) by whom, (ii) on what dates, (iii) what were the recommendations, (iv) were they reviewed by the August 26, 2010, meeting of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in collaboration with the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC); (b) why were Canadian members of the International Union of Phlebology (IUP), who were part of the Consensus process regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, not consulted during the August 26 meeting of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); (c) what are the details of any plan the government has or is developing to collect evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, for example, through clinical trials or the creation of a registry; (d) what percentage of surgical procedures in Canada have been double-blind tested over the last 40 years and, for this percentage, (i) what is the risk of complication, (ii) what is considered an acceptable risk of complication, (iii) how do physicians judge acceptable risk and convey this risk to their patients, (iv) what actions do physicians take to reduce risk if the patient chooses to undertake the procedure; (e) when a medical treatment appears to be potentially effective, is its approval ever fast-tracked by the relevant Canadian authorities and, if so, (i) what are any examples of this in Canada over the last five years, (ii) has this ever happened with respect to MS, (iii) if so, who advocated for a fast-tracking and when, (iv) what process was followed to allow the treatment, (v) who made the decision to proceed, (vi) why was fast-tracking deemed necessary, (vii) what were the known risks at the time of the request, (viii) what, if any, negative impacts resulted; (f) what are the reasons for the length of time it has taken the relevant Canadian authorities to implement clinical trials or to develop a registry; (g) why did no member of the August 26 group declare any conflicts of interest, either real or perceived; (h) how many liberation procedures did the August 26 group estimate have been undertaken, (i) which countries were undertaking the procedure, (ii) to which countries were Canadians travelling, (iii) were the practitioners considered to be sufficiently trained, (iv) were the procedures in these countries found to be safe; (i) which people, labs and operating theatres had undertaken the diagnosis or treatment of CCSVI in Canada prior to the August 26 meeting; (j) why did the August 26 meeting not include Canadian experts in the imaging or treatment of CCSVI and for what reasons was Dr. Sandy McDonald not included as a participant; (k) why did the August 26 meeting not include international experts in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, data presented at international scientific conferences or site visits to labs and operating theatres, which were or had been undertaking diagnosis or treatment; (l) what is a comprehensive explanation of why the inclusion of CCSVI and liberation experts might have biased the sample of the August 26 group and whether such selection is an established practice at all CIHR meetings; (m) what are all the names of the group members who had spoken out against diagnosis or treatment of CCSVI or the liberation procedure prior to the August 26 meeting, what were the details of their positions, and what are their publically-available comments on the matter; (n) who were all the members of the August 26 group and, for each member, what were his or her stated or declared conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest; (o) what was the August 26 group’s assessment of and comments concerning all reviewed published papers, including both positive and negative observations; (p) did the August 26 group find it unusual that two of the reviewed papers had been accepted for publication in only six weeks, (i) did the group review whether this is a common practice in medicine, (ii) did the group consider how and why this might happen, (iii) did the group explore the expertise of those writing the papers, their experience, how their results compared with those of Dr.Zamboni and, if so, (iv) what were the group's findings for questions posed in (iii); (q) which neurologists, present at the August 26 meeting, had followed MS patients who were diagnosed with CCSVI and who had been treated for the condition, (i) how had neurologists followed them (e.g., appointment, EDSS score/another scale, MRI, neurological exam, etc.), (ii) what, if any, evidence did they present of patients' progress following the liberation procedure; (r) did the August 26 group find the reversal in the MSSC's position, who was part of the greater group, unusual, (i) did the group investigate or consider the reasons for this change in position and, if so, (ii) what observations did it make or conclusions did it come to regarding the reversal; (s) did the August 26 group estimate how its decision might impact Canadian MS patients, including (i) impacts on their mental health and how this might impact their disease, (ii) the number of Canadian MS patients who might feel forced to seek help outside Canada, (iii) how air travel, a compromised vascular system, recent surgery, and lack of follow-up in Canada might impact their disease and, if so, (iv) what are the results of those estimations; (t) what consensus documents are forthcoming, (i) by whom, (ii) when will they be published; (u) what is the work plan for the new expert working group which met for the first time on November 23, 2010, (i) who are the panellists, what are their qualifications and what is their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, (ii) how were the panellists chosen and by whom, (iii) what is the group’s mandate and how was it derived, (iv) what is the schedule of meetings, (v) what is the timeline for the group’s work, (vi) what evidence will be reviewed to reach any decision about possible clinical trials, registry, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up care, etc.; (v) what was the agenda for the November 23 meeting of the expert working group, (i) what abstracts, documents, and presentations were reviewed, (ii) which Canadian and international experts, with experience in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, were consulted, (iii) what Canadian and international unpublished data were explored, (iv) what Canadian and international labs or operating theatres were reviewed and visited; (w) for what reasons is the new group going to analyze interim and final results from seven studies funded by the Canadian and US MS Societies and why are these studies considered more worthwhile cases for analysis than other studies already completed; (x) when will the November 23 expert panel declare and post any conflicts of interest, following the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) guide, on the CIHR website to eliminate the possibility of real or perceived conflicts; (y) further to assurances made by the President of CIHR, Dr. Alain Beaudet, to the Subcommittee on Neurological Diseases on December 7, 2010, that MS patients who have had the liberation procedure would have follow-up, what are the details of how that follow-up will occur, specifically, (i) how will “a message be sent”, by whom, to whom, by when and what will the message be, (ii) specifically, will all patients who travel or travelled outside Canada be assured that their doctors will see them, that appointments will not be cancelled, that tests will not be cancelled, that they will have access to recommended prescriptions, that they will not lose their long-term care and that they will not be berated for making the decision to have liberation, (iii) how will this be enforced, (iv) what action should MS patients take if they are denied care, (v) to whom should they report a denial of care, (vi) what are the consequences for a physician or health practitioner or organization who delivers care but fails to provide follow-up care, (vii) will follow-up include ultrasound or MRI to image the veins of MS patients and, if so, how often will these imaging procedures occur and who will pay for them?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1431]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:
Q-952 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With respect to the Universal Child Care Benefit program: (a) how many families received payments under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how many single parents applied and received payments under this program (i) by province, (ii) in total; (c) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; and (d) how many applications for the program were declined on annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1431]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology:
Q-953 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — With respect to the appointment of the Vice-Chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): (a) what criteria did Mr. Athanasios Pentefountas meet in order to qualify for this position; and (b) what criteria were used to select the best candidate for the position?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1431]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food:
Q-954 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): (a) how many full-time equivalents (FTEs) are expended by the CFIA on work related to food safety, as opposed to plant and animal health, on an annual basis in (i) the United States, (ii) Mexico, (iii) China, (iv) France, (v) Italy, (vi) Brazil, (vii) Chile, (viii) Thailand, (ix) Australia, (x) the United Kingdom; and (b) during 2011, will CFIA conduct any foreign country equivalency audits on the scale of the audits of Canada’s food safety system done by the United States Food Safety and Inspection Service, involving detailed and extensive review of policies, procedures and site visits to food production facilities and, if it will, which countries will it audit?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1431]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:
Q-955 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With respect to the First-Time Home Buyers' Tax Credit program: (a) how many first-time home buyers received benefits under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (c) how many applications were received and how many were declined on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1432]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:
Q-956 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regard to the British Columbia Treaty Process: (a) what substantive actions has the government taken to study the issue of accumulation of interest from treaty loans; (b) how does the debt from this interest affect the treaty negotiations; (c) when will the government outline its new approach to funding for First Nations self-government as announced in the March 2010 budget; (d) how has the federal mandate on negotiation changed since 2006; (e) how many treaty loans will come due in 2011; (f) what is the total value of those treaty loans coming due in 2011; (g) what is the total value of interest on those loans; (h) what steps has the government taken to extend the deadline on treaty loans; (i) when will the government report to the House of Commons on the treaty loan deadline; and (j) what is the government's communications plan as concerns the treaty loan deadline and First Nations, including those First Nations involved in treaty negotiations, those that have dropped out of the process and those First Nations that are not involved in treaty negotiations?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1432]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:
Q-957 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With reference to the study by Doctor Masazumi Harada entitled "Long-term study on the effects of mercury contamination on two indigenous communities in Canada (1975-2004)": (a) does Health Canada’s blood guidance value account for long-term low-level exposure to mercury; (b) what steps has Health Canada taken to study births in Grassy Narrows where the children exhibited symptoms of congenital Minamata disease; (c) what actions has Health Canada taken to inform Grassy Narrows residents about the potential for congenital Minamata disease; (d) since Health Canada stopped monitoring mercury in Grassy Narrows in the 1990s, has there been any follow-up study to ensure mercury levels have not changed; (e) how many people have applied to the Mercury Compensation Board since its beginning; (f) how many of those people were denied compensation; (g) for what reasons was compensation denied; (h) how many people appealed the denial of compensation and, of those people who appealed, how many were successful; (i) what investigation has been done into the long-term health of workers at chloralkali plants in Canada; (j) have chloralkali plant workers received any compensation for adverse health effects from mercury; (k) are there any plans to add the residents of Wabauskang (formerly Quibell) on the Wabigoon River to the list of possible beneficiaries of the Mercury Compensation Board; (l) what has been done to identify and remediate all mercury hot spots across Canada; and (m) how is the government upholding the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in relation to persistent mercury pollution hotspots including, but not limited to, Thunder Bay, Sarnia and Cornwall?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1433]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Q-958 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With respect to Agent Orange and Canadian veterans trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange spraying at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown: (a) what is the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to January 31, 2011, on the defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; (b) what is the total amount of money identified in (a) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011; (c) what is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to January 31, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; (d) what is the total amount of money identified in (c) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011; (e) what is the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to January 31, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; and (f) what is the total amount of money identified in (e) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1433]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance:
Q-959 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Winnipeg Centre for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or an agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or an agency over this period?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1433]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance:
Q-960 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Winnipeg Centre, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?
Collapse
2011-03-25 [p.1434]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred t...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the Ministry to respond to the following question was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs:
Q-961 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to programs aimed at increasing youth participation in the election process and democratic governance in Canada: (a) what initiatives were undertaken by all departments from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) what Canadian not-for-profit organizations received funding and were engaged in this process; (c) what was the total funding allocation for these initiatives from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; and (d) are any new programs planned to be launched in fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013?
Collapse
Results: 106 - 120 of 12815 | Page: 8 of 855

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data