Journals
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 893
2013-06-17 [p.3420]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of ...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-1343 — Mr. Dubé (Chambly—Borduas) — With regard to the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund, since its creation: (a) what is the total amount awarded by all regional development agencies; (b) for each agency, how many applications were received and, of that number, how many applications were refused; (c) what was the selection criteria; and (d) for each agency, how many projects were funded and, for each project funded or refused by the Fund, what was the type of community infrastructure (based on the definitions of eligible infrastructure), the amount awarded or refused and the name and place (city, province) of the applicant organization? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1343.
Collapse
2013-06-17 [p.3420]
Q-1344 — Mr. Dubé (Chambly—Borduas) — With regard to the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit: (a) how much has this credit cos...
Expand
Q-1344 — Mr. Dubé (Chambly—Borduas) — With regard to the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit: (a) how much has this credit cost the government for each fiscal year since its introduction; and (b) how many Canadians have claimed this tax credit by household type, by income bracket and by province? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1344.
Collapse
2013-06-17 [p.3420]
Q-1349 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, in each year since 2006 inclusive, what has b...
Expand
Q-1349 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, in each year since 2006 inclusive, what has been the number of : (a) harassment complaints other than that of a sexual nature; (b) sexual harassment complaints; and (c) harassment investigations, broken down by the following locations (i) Department of National Defence (DND)/Canadian Forces(CF) establishments located in the National Capital Region, including NDHQ, (ii) Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Halifax, (iii) CFB Cornwallis, (iv) CFB Gagetown, (v) CFB Valcartier, (vi) CFB Kingston (not including the Royal Military College), (vii) CFB Petawawa, (viii) CFB Borden, (ix) CFB Shilo, (x) CFB Edmonton, (xi) CFB Comox, (xii) CFB Esquimalt, (xiii) Royal Military College (Kingston), (xiv) Royal Military College (St-Jean)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1349.
Collapse
2013-06-17 [p.3421]
Q-1351 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND), what is the detailed breakdown...
Expand
Q-1351 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND), what is the detailed breakdown of : (a) Canadian Armed Forces executives by rank (General, Lieutenant-General, Major-General and Brigadier-General); and (b) DND executives by classification (DM-4, DM-3, DM-2, DM-1, EX-5, EX-4, EX-3, EX-2 and EX-1), on December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2012? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1351.
Collapse
2013-06-17 [p.3421]
Q-1353 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND): (a) what are the rank...
Expand
Q-1353 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND): (a) what are the ranks of each Canadian Armed Forces member and classification of each DND employee who, on December 31, 2012, attended post-graduate training at public expense at a Canadian or international educational institution; and (b) for each, what is (i) the actual yearly salary of the student, (ii) the program of study, (iii) the number of semesters of study paid for by the government since the start of their career, (iv) all the institutions attended, (v) the total cost of tuition paid with respect to the student’s training, (vi) whether relocation costs were paid with respect to the training and the amount of those costs, (vii) any other associated costs? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1353.
Collapse
2013-06-17 [p.3421]
Q-1354 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — With regard to the Centre of Excellence for Evaluation (CEE) of the Treasury Boar...
Expand
Q-1354 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — With regard to the Centre of Excellence for Evaluation (CEE) of the Treasury Board Secretariat: (a) why is the 2012 Annual Report on the Health of the Evaluation Function not available online; (b) why are official languages not included in the 2011 Annual Report on the Health of the Evaluation Function; (c) how are official languages integrated into the work of the CEE; (d) does the CEE work closely with the Official Languages Centre of Excellence and, if so, how; (e) how are official languages integrated into the evaluation function as regards expenditure management in the public service as a whole; (f) why are official languages not included in the Leadership Competencies for Federal Heads of Evaluation; (g) why are official languages not included in the Policy on Evaluation; (h) how does the CEE ensure that federal institutions have access to external evaluators with official languages experience when necessary; (i) how many CEE employees work on files with an official languages component; (j) does the Framework for Professional Development for Evaluators have an official languages component and, if so, what is it; (k) why has the Audit and Evaluation Database been offline for a number of weeks, and when will it be working again; and (l) how does the CEE ensure that the tools it provides on its website take into account its official languages obligations? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1354.
Collapse
2013-06-14 [p.3411]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atl...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-1332 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — With regard to any funding dedicated to the promotion of Canada’s official languages that was not accounted for in the $1.1 billion dollars outlined in the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality 2008-2013: (a) what departments or agencies contributed to the funding of official languages programs; (b) what are the names of the programs that delivered that funding listed by department or agency; and (c) what amount of money did each of those programs spend in fiscal years (i) 2007-2008, (ii) 2008-2009, (iii) 2009-2010, (iv) 2010-2011, (v) 2011-2012, (vi) 2012-2013? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1332.
Collapse
2013-06-14 [p.3412]
Q-1336 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2011...
Expand
Q-1336 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2011: (a) what are the details of all the fonds and records held in custody by LAC that have been or are currently being de-accessioned to (i) provincial or territorial archives, (ii) university archives, (iii) regional or local archival institutions or organizations; (b) on what written policy or operational rationale were each of these de-accessions based on; (c) what are the details of all the fonds and records on deposit with LAC that have been or are currently under discussion or negotiation for referral to (i) provincial or territorial archives, (ii) university archives or libraries, (iii) regional or local archival institutions or organizations; and (d) in every case the LAC decided not to acquire archives or records being offered, what written policy or operational rationale was provided to the donor as the basis of this decision? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1336.
Collapse
2013-06-14 [p.3412]
Q-1338 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2005...
Expand
Q-1338 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2005: (a) what sections and branches currently exist or have existed, broken down by year; (b) how many archivists work or have worked in each section and branch, broken down by year, including and specifying part-time and seasonal employees; (c) how many managers work for each section and department; (d) how many items were acquired; (e) what was the total value of items acquired; (f) how many interlibrary loans were registered; (g) what were the costs for operating interlibrary loans; and (h) how many international trips did the head of LAC take and what were the costs of those trips? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1338.
Collapse
2013-06-14 [p.3412]
Q-1340 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the issue of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics in T...
Expand
Q-1340 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the issue of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics in Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario: (a) when was Health Canada approached by the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics; (b) how many consultations took place between Health Canada and the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics; (c) how many consultations took place between Health Canada and (i) Canadian Blood Services, (ii) the province of Ontario; (d) when did these consultations take place and if no consultations took place, how did Health Canada determine that consultations were not necessary; (e) when were the locations for the proposed clinics approved; (f) what process did the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics follow to obtain approval for the location of the clinics; (g) what is Health Canada’s policy on the operation of for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada; (h) what is Health Canada’s policy with regard to following the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (“Krever report”); (i) what existing statutes, regulations, auditing processes, etc. are in place to ensure the safety of Canada’s blood supply; (j) with regard to ensuring the safety of Canada’s blood supply, what is the regulatory role of (i) Health Canada, (ii) the province, (iii) Canadian Blood Services; (k) what role does Canadian Blood Services play in the establishment or regulation of for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada; (l) what does Health Canada’s auditing process for licensing for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada involve; (m) what information is provided to Health Canada by the operators; (n) how often does Health Canada audit these clinics; and (o) what is the relationship between Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in ensuring the safety of blood plasma products purchased from the United States of America? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1340.
Collapse
2013-06-13 [p.3402]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs) presented the...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-1335 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With regard to the presence of foreign governments in Canada, specifically the operation or presence of any security, intelligence or law enforcement agencies: (a) what are the names of all law agencies operating with the permission and consent of the government within the sovereign territory of Canada, broken down by country; (b) is the government aware of any law enforcement agency present or operating without the consent and permission of the government; (c) what are the police powers of foreign law enforcement within Canada; (d) does the government allow any foreign law enforcement agency the power to act alone without the presence of a designated Canadian police or peace office present; (e) does the government grant power on a case-by-case basis to an agent of foreign law enforcement to stop any resident of Canada for questioning; (f) does the government allow agents of foreign law enforcement the power to present identification or a badge within Canada for the purpose of investigating within Canada; (g) does the government currently allow agents of foreign law enforcement agency the power to cross a Canadian border either by air, sea or land in possession of a weapon; (h) does the government intend to allow agents of a foreign law enforcement agency the power to enter, leave and operate in Canada with the power to enforce Canadian law, including the power to detain, questions and arrest a citizen or permanent resident of Canada; (i) does the government intend to extend the power to agents of a foreign government law enforcement agency the right of pre-emptive arrest or pre-emptive detention without warrant, as provided in Bill S-7; (j) does the government currently have a cap on the number of agents from a foreign law enforcement agency assigned to Canada and, if so, what is the maximum number of agents allowed; and (k) does the government allow agents of a foreign law enforcement agency the authority to operate their own police vehicles, including police boats, airplanes, or any motor vehicle, within Canada, including the use of sirens or other identifiable police markings? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1335.
Collapse
2013-06-13 [p.3403]
Q-1339 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to military procurement projects, since 2001: (a) how many projec...
Expand
Q-1339 — Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to military procurement projects, since 2001: (a) how many projects have been sole-sourced as opposed to following a competitive process; (b) which of these have been sole-sourced; (c) what was the rationale for each project being sole-sourced; (d) what is the Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) value for each sole-sourced procurement project; (e) does the IRB value for each sole-sourced project represent 100% of the project value (acquisition and in-service support); (f) what percentage of military procurement projects have been sole-sourced since 2001; (g) how many procurement projects have been sole-sourced each year between 2001 and the present year; and (h) which specific projects in each year have been sole-sourced between 2001 and the present? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1339.
Collapse
2013-06-13 [p.3403]
Q-1346 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, what was the breakdown of strength b...
Expand
Q-1346 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, what was the breakdown of strength by rank for each Regular Force Unit of the Royal 22nd Regiment as of (i) January 1, 1995, (ii) January 1, 2000, (iii) January 1, 2005, (iv) January 1, 2010? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1346.
Collapse
2013-06-12 [p.3390]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-1326 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to homicides and attempted homicides among Somali-Canadian males in Canada since 2006: (a) what are the dates of each death, listed chronologically, and for each death, what is (i) the location where the death occurred, (ii) the Canadian home location if not the location of the death, (iii) the cause of death, (iv) whether the homicide was solved or not, and if unsolved, for how many years the death has remained unsolved, and how the time period compares with the average time to resolve homicides for the Canadian population as a whole, (v) whether a reward to solve the homicide was offered or not, and if a reward was offered, how much was offered, if the reward was ever claimed, (vi) whether in any given homicide case there is any on-going investigation, (vii) if this information cannot be provided, why not; (b) what are the dates of each attempted homicide, listed chronologically, and for each, what is (i) the location where the attempt occurred, (ii) the Canadian place of origin if not the location of the attempt, (iii) whether the attempted homicide was solved or not, and if unsolved, for how many years the attempt has remained unsolved, and how the time period compares with the average time to resolve homicides for the Canadian population as a whole, (iv) whether a reward was offered or not, and if a reward was offered, how much was offered, and if the reward was ever claimed, (v) whether in any given case there is any on-going investigation, (vi) if this information cannot be provided, why not; (c) for each year, what is the number of Somali-Canadian homicides that occurred by Canadian city, (i) what percentage did Somali-Canadian homicides comprise of the total homicides in the identified city by year, (ii) what percentage of Somali-Canadian homicides by city by year went unsolved compared with that of the general Canadian population, (iii) what percentage does the Somali-Canadian population comprise for each identified city, and how does this percentage compare with the percentage of Somali-Canadian homicides for the city for each year, (iv) if this information cannot be provided, why not; (d) for each year, what is the number of Somali-Canadian attempted homicides that occurred by Canadian city, (i) what percentage did Somali-Canadian attempted homicides comprise of the total attempted homicides in the identified city by year, (ii) what percentage of Somali-Canadian attempted homicides by city went unsolved compared with that of the general Canadian population in the identified city by year, (iii) what percentage does the Somali-Canadian population comprise for each identified city, and how does this percentage compare with the percentage of Somali-Canadian attempted homicides for the city, (iv) if this information cannot be provided, why not; (e) what research and investment has the government undertaken to explore these homicides and attempted homicides, and if any, what are the studies, dates, and monetary investment, and specifically (i) the total actual number of deaths and whether or not the violence is increasing, (ii) from what Canadian cities are the victims, (iii) what are the causes of the violence, and can they be reduced, (iv) what are solutions to stem the violence; (f) what, if any, research or investment has been given to consider whether (i) a federal judicial task force should investigate why so many Somali-Canadians are killed in Canada, many without corresponding charges or arrests, (ii) the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security or a special committee should investigate these deaths, and make recommendations to reduce the violence; (g) what research or investment has been given to consider whether a provincial-federal employment and opportunity program supporting Somali-Canadians might help reduce the violence, and if any, what are the studies, dates, and actual investment; (h) what research or investment has been given to support Somali-Canadians in accessing employment opportunities with the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police, and if any, what are the studies, dates, and actual investment; (i) what research or investment has been given to strengthening the witness protection program to encourage more witnesses to come forward, and if any, what are the studies, dates, and actual investment; (j) what research or investment has been given to reducing homicides and attempted homicides among the Somali-Canadian population and, if any, what are the studies, dates, and actual investment, and any recommendations to reduce the violence; and (k) what, if any, research or investment has been given to estimating (i) the direct and indirect health care costs of each attempted homicide, (ii) the costs to the mental health care and social care system to support the victim and family, (iii) how these costs compare with any federal inquiry or study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security or a special committee to study the issue and provide preventive recommendations, and what are studies, dates, and actual investment? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1326.
Collapse
2013-06-12 [p.3392]
Q-1327 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program (CVITP) in Charlottetown...
Expand
Q-1327 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program (CVITP) in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island: (a) what is the level of support the CVITP has received from Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) over the past five years, broken down by fiscal year, including (i) the nature of the support offered each year, (ii) the cost to CRA to provide this support; and (b) does CRA have plans to reduce, eliminate, increase, or restore support to the CVITP in Charlottetown? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1327.
Collapse
2013-06-12 [p.3392]
Q-1328 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to correspondence from Parliamentarians addressed to the Minister of N...
Expand
Q-1328 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With respect to correspondence from Parliamentarians addressed to the Minister of National Revenue, for the period September 1, 2010 to the present: (a) what is the amount of correspondence, initiated by Parliamentarians (MPs and Senators), that has gone unanswered (i) after three months, (ii) after six months; (b) what percentage of correspondence not answered after three months was from (i) Conservative MPs and Senators, (ii) Liberal MPs and Senators, (iii) NDP MPs, (iv) other MPs and Senators; (c) what percentage of correspondence not answered after six months was from (i) Conservative MPs and Senators, (ii) Liberal MPs and Senators, (iii) NDP MPs, (iv) other MPs and Senators; and (d) what is the average response time for correspondence received from (i) Conservative MPs or Senators, (ii) Liberal MPs or Senators, (iii) NDP MPs, (iv) other MPs or Senators? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1328.
Collapse
2013-06-12 [p.3392]
Q-1329 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill) — With regard to government funding specifically dedicated to ending violence against wo...
Expand
Q-1329 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill) — With regard to government funding specifically dedicated to ending violence against women, what was the total amount of funding, broken down by fiscal year, from fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including fiscal year 2011-2012, broken down by (i) the department or agency responsible for the funding, (ii) the program or initiative from which the funding came, (iii) the project name, (iv) the total value of the project, (v) description of the project, (vi) entity responsible for delivering the project, (vii) length of the project, (viii) geographic target of the project, if applicable, by province and federal riding? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1329.
Collapse
2013-06-12 [p.3393]
Q-1330 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to the impact of Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport ...
Expand
Q-1330 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to the impact of Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport on the Bouchard Stream, in the City of Dorval, Quebec, that flows into Lac Saint-Louis: (a) does the government have data, obtained either through reporting to the National Pollutant Release Inventory, or by any other means, on (i) the quantity of the de-icing agent glycol used by the airport on an annual basis, (ii) the quantity of glycol that is recycled on an annual basis, (iii) the quantity that escapes into the surrounding environment near, or at, Bouchard Stream on an annual basis; (b) if the quantities in (a) are known, what are these quantities, by year, for every year since 2000; (c) does any department or agency monitor the quality of the water in the Bouchard Stream to ascertain whether it might contain deleterious substances harmful to fish that could originate from the operations of the airport or from surrounding industries; and (d) does the government work with provincial and municipal authorities in the City of Dorval and the City of Montreal to ensure that the Bouchard Stream and Lac Saint-Louis are not being polluted by deleterious substances harmful to fish? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1330.
Collapse
2013-06-12 [p.3393]
Q-1331 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to offenders admitted to the Correctional Service of Canada in...
Expand
Q-1331 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to offenders admitted to the Correctional Service of Canada institutions since 2000: (a) by institution, how many offenders have been admitted each year; (b) by institution, how many offenders admitted each year had previously served a sentence in that, or another, federal institution; and (c) by institution, how many offenders admitted each year had previously served a sentence in a provincial correctional facility? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1331.
Collapse
2013-06-10 [p.3356]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Wes...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-1322 — Mr. Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead) — With regard to the 2013-2014 Main Estimates for the Canada Border Services Agency: (a) how many positions were cut, broken down by program; (b) what will the sources of respendable revenue be, broken down by amount; (c) what will the sources of professional and special services expenditures be, broken down by (i) service, (ii) contractor, (iii) amount; and (d) what will the sources of other subsidies and payments expenditures be, broken down by (i) subsidy, (ii) payment, (iii) amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1322.
Collapse
2013-06-10 [p.3357]
Q-1323 — Mr. Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine) — With regard to the commercial wharves in the province of Quebec and...
Expand
Q-1323 — Mr. Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine) — With regard to the commercial wharves in the province of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces: (a) what commercial wharves are in operation today, broken down by (i) province, (ii) riding, (iii) municipality; (b) of the wharves mentioned in (a), what are the estimated repair costs, broken down by (i) province, (ii) riding, (iii) municipality, (iv) wharf; and (c) of the wharves mentioned in (a), what are the estimated maintenance costs, broken down by (i) province, (ii) riding, (iii) municipality, (iv) wharf? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1323.
Collapse
2013-06-10 [p.3357]
Q-1324 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With regard to the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Ag...
Expand
Q-1324 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — With regard to the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA), and new developments in investment arbitration which have arisen since the text of the agreement was finalized in early 2012: (a) has the government conducted any study on the fiscal risk or regulatory impacts that may arise from the litigation and resolution of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) claim against Quebec’s moratorium on gas fracturing (also known as fracking); (b) has the government reviewed its approach to reservations in the FIPA and other treaties that provide for investor-state arbitration in light of the decision in Mobil Investments Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v. Government of Canada, with particular reference to the fact that a majority of the tribunal rejected Canada’s argument by concluding that subsidiary measures (introduced under legislation that was reserved under the treaty) must be consistent not only with the reserved legislation but also with prior subsidiary measures introduced under the relevant legislation; (c) has the government examined Canada’s vulnerability to investor claims arising from domestic court decisions and domestic judicial doctrines, as in the recent Eli Lilly claim against Canada and the Deutsche Bank award against Sri Lanka; (d) on what basis does the government conclude that its previously-stated intention not to violate the Canada-China FIPA is a prudent and reasonable assumption given that Canada has been found to have violated similar obligations in Chapter 11 of NAFTA in the past and faces numerous outstanding NAFTA Chapter 11 claims; (e) has the government assessed its risks and liabilities arising from investor-state arbitration under the Canada-China FIPA in light of the experience of other countries pursuant to other treaties that provide for investor-state arbitration (for example, bilateral investment treaties, Central America Free Trade Agreement, the Energy Charter Treaty) or has the government limited its assessment in this regard to the experience under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, and, if so, on what basis does the government conclude that the experience under the former is not relevant to the Canada-China FIPA; (f) with particular reference to the fact that the government has cited projections that Chinese outbound investment may reach $1 trillion by 2020, and given that Canada’s share of Chinese outbound investment in 2011 was approximately one sixth of total Chinese outbound investment, does the government accept that it is reasonable to expect that Chinese investment in Canada will reach one hundred billion dollars or more during the minimum lifespan of the Canada-China FIPA, and, if the government does not accept this, what steps does the government intend to take to limit the amount of Chinese investment in Canada; (g) has the government committed in writing to cover all costs and liabilities arising from investor-state arbitration claims under the Canada-China FIPA where such claims arise from measures of a provincial, territorial, municipal, aboriginal, or other sub-national decision-maker in Canada; (h) is the government aware of any connection between the payment of $15 million by Ontario to the claimant in St. Mary's VCNA, LLC v. Government of Canada and the claimant's agreement to withdraw its NAFTA claim against Canada and to agree to the related consent award with the government; (i) is the government aware of any payment of compensation by Quebec to the claimant in William Jay Greiner and Malbaie River Outfitters Inc. v. Government of Canada in relation to the claimant’s withdrawal of its NAFTA claim against Canada in that case; (j) were Canadian Embassy staff in Beijing consulted on or involved in the negotiation of the Canada-China FIPA during 2011 and 2012, and if so, (i) what was the process for consulting Canadian Embassy staff and how were they involved, (ii) was the process similar to that used in previous consultations with the in-country Canadian embassy or consulate for the negotiation of other bilateral investment treaties, and if so, in what respects; (k) with regard to the Canada-China FIPA, has the government done an assessment of the implications of extending the FIPA's performance requirements obligation to provincial and other sub-national decision-makers, with particular reference to the fact that Article 1109 of NAFTA exempts existing provincial measures from the performance requirements obligation referred to in NAFTA Article 1108; (l) as a result of the most-favoured-nation treatment clause in NAFTA, will the Canada-China FIPA’s extension of the performance requirements obligation to the provinces and other sub-national decision-makers allow U.S. investors to bring claims against Canada arising from provincial decisions or other measures in circumstances where Canadian investors would not be able to bring claims against the U.S. where the challenged measure was taken by a U.S. state or other sub-national decision-maker; (m) has the government done any assessment of the implications of not extending the treaty’s reservations on aboriginal rights, pursuant to Annex II of the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement, to Article 9 of the Canada-China FIPA on performance requirements, with particular reference to the fact that the comparator reservation in NAFTA does extend to NAFTA Article 1108 on performance requirements; (n) has the government done any assessments of potential conflicts or inconsistencies between the provisions of the Canada-China FIPA and Chapter 6 (Energy and Basic Petrochemicals) of NAFTA and, in particular, the provisions on measures restricting imports and exports of energy and basic petrochemical goods; (o) with regard to the Final Environmental Assessment of the Canada-China FIPA, who decided and how was it determined that (i) there was no causal relationship between the Canada-China FIPA and inbound Chinese investment in Canada, (ii) there was, as a result, no environmental impact from the FIPA, and on what evidence did the government rely to make these determinations; (p) how many public submissions did the government receive as part of its Environmental Assessment of the Canada–China FIPA, and how many public submissions did the government receive for each other FIPA negotiated for which an Environmental Assessment was conducted; (q) which negotiators and environmental experts were involved in the Environmental Assessment of the Canada-China FIPA and how were the environmental considerations of the experts and the public integrated into the negotiating strategy; (r) what, if any, studies has the government undertaken to assess the impact on future model bilateral investment treaties of extending most-favoured-nation treatment in the Canada-China FIPA to treatment accorded under any bilateral or multilateral international agreement in force on or after January 1, 1994; (s) how will the government ensure that any settlements of claims against Canada under the Canada-China FIPA, or under any other treaty that provides for investor-state arbitration, to which a provincial government is a party will be made public; and (t) does the government know if China has ratified the Canada-China FIPA? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1324.
Collapse
2013-06-10 [p.3359]
Q-1325 — Mr. Toet (Elmwood—Transcona) — With regard to federal transfers, grants, contributions, bilateral agreements or...
Expand
Q-1325 — Mr. Toet (Elmwood—Transcona) — With regard to federal transfers, grants, contributions, bilateral agreements or any other arrangements, what were the amounts paid out to the government of Manitoba (including through municipalities in Manitoba) in 2011 and 2012, broken down by the (i) year, (ii) name of the program under which the funding was allocated, (iii) individual amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1325.
Collapse
2013-06-07 [p.3341]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage) presented ...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-1318 — Ms. Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) — With regard to projects funded through the Global Peace and Security Fund, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013, how many projects were funded, broken down by (i) recipient of project, (ii) description of project, (iii) location of project, (iv) length of project, (v) value of project, (vi) sub-program and thematic area of project, (vii) type of funding? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1318.
Collapse
2013-06-07 [p.3342]
Q-1320 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to ongoing investigation into habitat conservation in Canada, and pa...
Expand
Q-1320 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to ongoing investigation into habitat conservation in Canada, and particularly the proposed National Conservation Plan: (a) what research, including all studies, findings and recommendations, and investment has the government undertaken to assess the full potential of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), in its current form, to contribute to national habitat conservation objectives; and (b) what research, including all studies, findings and recommendations, has the government undertaken to assess what will be required to ensure that the full potential of SARA to contribute to national habitat conservation objectives is realized? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1320.
Collapse
2013-06-03 [p.3258]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of ...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-1314 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to the Employment Insurance Stewardship Pilot program: (a) what is the rationale for this program; (b) when was the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development first made aware of this pilot program in any form (concept, draft or final); (c) did this program have Ministerial approval at any stage; (d) if yes to (c), when did the Minister provide approval in any form (concept, draft or final); (e) what is the total cost of this program, including the total cost for all travel for each employee; (f) what is the total number of Full-Time Equivalent employees required for this program; (g) what is the total number of Full-Time Equivalent employees required as investigators for this program; (h) what was the total amount of overtime to date; (i) what is the total number of reviews for Employment Insurance (El) benefits claims under this pilot program that occurred at the claimants’ residence; (j) what is the total number of reviews for El benefits claims under this pilot program broken down by (i) geographic area, (ii) province, (ii) previous employment industry, (iii) any other grouping or criteria used for processing;
(k) what is the total number of reviews for EI benefits claims under this pilot program made on the self-employed, broken down by (i) geographic area, (ii) province, (iii) previous employment industry, (iv) any other grouping or criteria used for processing; (l) what is the total number of “last employer or relevant third parties” contacted for verification of reviews for EI benefits claims; (m) what is the total number of on-site visits to employers to view and verify Record of Employment information for reviews for EI benefits claims; (n) who are the members of the Program Stewardship and Analysis team; (o) how many analysis reports did the Program Stewardship and Analysis team produce, including dates and internal unique identifying or tracking numbers for each report; (p) who designed the Detailed Investigative Technique Tool; (q) who approved the Detailed Investigative Technique Tool; (r) what were the phases of approval of the Detailed Investigative Technique Tool; (s) when was the Minister first made aware of the Detailed Investigative Technique Tool in any form (concept, draft or final); (t) who are the members of the EI Stewardship Review (EISR) Working Group;
(u) how were the members of the EISR Working Group chosen or appointed; (v) who selected the members of the EISR Working Group; (w) how often did the members of the EISR Working Group meet (include dates and locations for each meeting); (x) what was the total cost of the members of the EISR Working Group (broken down by travel type, accommodations, meals, and other expense categories available); (y) who did the members of the EISR Working Group report to; (z) what are the dates of the conference calls undertaken by the EISR Working Group; (aa) what was the StreetSweeper software date of utilization; (bb) who approved StreetSweeper software for this pilot program; (cc) who were the Business Expertise Consultants listed by region; (dd) as a result of the reviews under this pilot program, how many were finalized as a Case in Order;
(ee) as a result of the reviews under this pilot program, how many were finalized as a prepared Report of Investigation for Processing and Payment Services Branch adjudication; (ff) why were the timelines for Planning, Pilot, Finalization of Reviews and Review/Analysis chosen; (gg) why was the March, 2013, deadline chosen for the Finalization of Reviews; (hh) why was the November, 2012, to February 2013, timeline chose for the “pilot” section of this program; (ii) who designed the EI Stewardship Review Survey list of Client Interview review points/questions; (jj) who approved the EI Stewardship Review Survey list of Client Interview review points/questions; (kk) who designed the EI Stewardship Review Survey list of Employer/Third Party review points/questions; (ll) who approved the EI Stewardship Review Survey list of Employer/Third Party review points/questions; (mm) what is the policy and recommended procedure for inspectors regarding entering the residence of a claimant for the purposes of interviewing regarding the review for El Benefits claims; (nn) what is the policy and recommended procedure of inspectors regarding verifying proof of a child’s identity and parentage for a claimant for the purposes of interviewing regarding the review for El Benefits claims;
(oo) what is the policy and recommended procedure for inspectors regarding verifying proof of hospitalization of a claimant for the purposes of interviewing regarding the review for El Benefits claims; and (pp) what is the total number of times employer or third party payroll records were observed under this pilot program? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1314.
Collapse
2013-06-03 [p.3260]
Q-1316 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to the Nuclear Liability Act and nuclear safety: (a) will th...
Expand
Q-1316 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to the Nuclear Liability Act and nuclear safety: (a) will the Department of Natural Resources Canada organize a public consultation with a variety of environmental and socio-economic stakeholders on the modernization of the Nuclear Liability Act before revisions are tabled in Parliament; (b) will the Department of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) provide the policy objectives of the Nuclear Liability Act; (c) in considering revisions to the Nuclear Liability Act, what criteria is the government currently using to determine the liability of nuclear operators; (d) will NRCan release all comments provided by industry to its May 2013 consultation document on the Nuclear Liability Act; (e) how does NRCan define “the limitation, to a reasonable level and in a manner that is consistent with Canada’s international obligations, of the risks to national security, the health and safety of persons and the environment that are associated with the development, production and use of nuclear energy” as laid out in the objectives of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act; (f) has NRCan or any agency under its authority assessed the potential consequences of a major accidental radiation release at a Canadian nuclear facility; (g) will NRCan commission a study on the consequences of a large accidental radiation release at the Darlington nuclear station, the Pickering nuclear station, the Point Lepreau nuclear station, and the Bruce nuclear station to inform a public consultation on revising the Nuclear Liability Act and publicly release the results; (h) will NRCan provide the preliminary conclusions of the Atomic Energy Control Board’s (AECB) severe accident study; (i) will NRCan provide the AECB’s rationale for abandoning the severe accident study; (j) has NRCan reviewed the frequency and magnitude of reactor accidents based on the world-wide record as recommended by the Inter-departmental Work Group on the Nuclear Liability Act in 1984, and if so, will NRCan share the conclusions of this review;
(k) has Environment Canada considered the impact of a proposed Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act or the current Nuclear Liability Act on Canada’s commitment to sustainability and the polluter-pays principle, and if so, will Environment Canada provide the results of the department’s analysis; (l) has NRCan considered the impact of the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act or the Nuclear Liability Act on Canada’s commitment to sustainability and the polluter-pays principle, and if so, will NRCan provide the results of the department’s analysis; (m) could NRCan provide the government policy objective that lead to the passage of the Nuclear Liability Act and describe how and when this policy was established; (n) could NRCan provide the government policy objective that informed the development of the proposed Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act and describe how and when this policy was established; (o) did NRCan reconsider Canada’s policy on nuclear liability protection following the Fukushima disaster; (p) under which conditions would NRCan accept an unlimited liability regime for the updated Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act in the event of a nuclear accident, and if none, why not; (q) has NRCan estimated the implicit subsidy per kilowatt that would be created by raising the liability limit to $650 million and $1 billion as opposed to an unlimited liability, and if so, will NRCan share the results; (r) does NRCan have a policy on assessing and reporting on the energy market distortions created by the implicit subsidy created by current and future caps on nuclear operator liability; (s) how often does NRCan verify the insurance capacity of the insurers in Canada; and (t) how does NRCan define the “reasonable” cost of insurance in determining the maximum level required of nuclear operators? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1316.
Collapse
2013-05-31 [p.3240]
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of ...
Expand
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:
Q-1302 — Mr. Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine) — With regard to funding in the electoral district of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, what is the total amount of federal funding allocated to the electoral district from fiscal year 2011-2012 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by year, department, agency, initiative and amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1302.
Collapse
2013-05-31 [p.3240]
Q-1304 — Ms. Boivin (Gatineau) — With regard to the distribution of jobs with federal departments and agencies in the Na...
Expand
Q-1304 — Ms. Boivin (Gatineau) — With regard to the distribution of jobs with federal departments and agencies in the National Capital Region (NCR): (a) how many jobs were located in the Quebec part of the NCR in 2013; (b) how many jobs were located in the Ontario part of the NCR in 2013; (c) how many jobs in the Quebec part of the NCR will be eliminated as a result of the cuts introduced in the last budget; and (d) how many jobs in the Ontario part of the NCR will be eliminated as a result of the cuts introduced in the last budget? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1304.
Collapse
2013-05-31 [p.3240]
Q-1305 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to Bill C-10, in the year after it received royal assent: (a) broken dow...
Expand
Q-1305 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to Bill C-10, in the year after it received royal assent: (a) broken down by offence, how many people have been charged for offences created by the bill; (b) broken down by offence, how many people have been convicted of offences created by the bill; (c) broken down by offence, what sentences have been issued to people convicted of offences created by the bill; (d) broken down by offence, how many people have been charged under the provisions of the bill; (e) broken down by offence, how many people have been convicted under the provisions of the bill; (f) broken down by offence, how many people have been sentenced under the provisions of the bill; (g) broken down by offence, what sentences have been issued to people sentenced under the provisions of the bill; (h) in how many of the cases in (d) was a constitutional argument raised by the offender (i) at trial, (ii) on appeal; (i) broken down by geographic jurisdiction and instance, how many cases in (d) are pending (i) at the trial level, (ii) on appeal; (j) how much money has the government spent on prosecutions under the provisions of the bill; (k) how much money has the government spent defending the constitutionality of the bill; (l) in what cases, if any, did the bill provide for punishment where none was provided for under previously-existing provisions of the Criminal Code; (m) broken down by offence and length of sentence, in what cases, if any, did an offender sentenced under the provisions of the bill receive a longer sentence than what was allowed for under previously-existing provisions of the Criminal Code; (n) in what ways has the bill made streets and communities safer; (o) in what ways, if any, has the government reviewed the effectiveness of the bill; (p) what were the results of any such reviews; (q) what reviews of the effectiveness of the bill, if any, are ongoing; (r) when will the results of any such reviews be made available to Parliament; (s) what factors has the government considered when evaluating the effectiveness of the bill; (t) by what standard does the government determine whether repeal of the bill for ineffectiveness is appropriate; (u) what is the prosecution rate for offences created by the bill; (v) what is the prosecution rate for offences with one or more sentencing provisions modified by the bill; (w) what was the prosecution rate for the offences in (v) prior to the coming-into-force of the bill; (x) what is the prosecution rate for offences otherwise modified by the bill; (y) what was the prosecution rate for offences in (x) prior to the coming-into-force of the bill; (z) what is the prosecution rate for all federal offences in Canada; (aa) what is the projected rate of recidivism for offenders convicted under the provisions of the bill; (bb) in what ways has the government worked with provinces and territories to inform prosecutors and police services of the provisions of the bill; (cc) broken down by province or territory, what funding has the government provided to provinces and territories to assist with the implementation of the bill; (dd) what studies, if any, have been undertaken of the impact of the bill on the number of inmates in (i) federal custody, (ii) provincial custody; (ee) what are the results of any such studies; (ff) what is the projected impact of the bill on the number of inmates in (i) federal custody, (ii) provincial custody; (gg) what evidence exists to suggest that the provisions in the bill have deterred criminal activity; (hh) broken down by province and territory, which specific communities, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (ii) in what ways have the communities in (hh) been made safer; (jj) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the communities in (hh) have been made safer; (kk) broken down by province and territory, which specific streets, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (ll) in what ways have the streets in (kk) been made safer; (mm) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the streets in (kk) have been made safer; (nn) which First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (oo) in what ways have the communities in (nn) been made safer; (pp) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the communities in (nn) have been made safer; (qq) in what ways have people traditionally marginalized by the criminal justice system, such as women, aboriginal Canadians, and low-income Canadians, been made safer by the bill; and (rr) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the people in (qq) have been made safer? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-1305.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 30 of 893 | Page: 1 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data