Questions and responses All Sessions January 17, 1994, to present

With regard to designated countries of origin (DCO): (a) what is the process for removing a country from the DCO list; (b) does the government conduct regular reviews of countries on the DCO list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation; (c) if the government does not conduct regular reviews of countries on the DCO list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation, (i) how is a review triggered, (ii) who decides whether to conduct a review, (iii) based on what factors is the decision to conduct a review made; (d) since the inception of the DCO list, has the government conducted any reviews of countries on the list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation; (e) for each review in (d), (i) what was the country, (ii) when did the review begin, (iii) when did the review end, (iv) how was the review triggered, (v) who decided to conduct the review, (vi) who conducted the review, (vii) what documents were consulted, (viii) what groups or individuals were consulted, (ix) what ministers or ministers’ offices were involved in the review, (x) what was the nature of any ministerial involvement, (xi) what was the outcome, (xii) based on what factors was the outcome determined; (f) based on what factors does the government decide whether to remove a country from the DCO list; (g) in what ways does the government monitor the human rights situation in countries on the DCO list to ensure that the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (h) who does the monitoring in (g); (i) what weight is given to the situation of minority groups in countries on the DCO list when evaluating whether the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (j) what weight is given to the situation of political dissidents in countries on the DCO list when evaluating whether the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (k) what type or extent of change in the human rights situation in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (l) what type or extent of change in the situation of one or more minority groups in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (m) what type or extent of change in the situation of political dissidents in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (n) what type or extent of change in the human rights situation in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (o) what type or extent of change in the situation of one or more minority groups in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (p) what type or extent of change in the situation of political dissidents in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (q) in what ways does the government discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list; (r) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent outside Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year and country where the money was spent; (s) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent within Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year, province or territory where the money was spent, and DCO country in question; (t) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent on advertising outside Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year and country where the money was spent; (u) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent on advertising within Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year, province or territory where the money was spent, and DCO country in question; (v) what evaluations has the government conducted of the advertising in (t) and (u); (w) for each evaluation in (v), (i) when did it begin, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) who conducted it, (iv) what were its objectives, (v) what were its outcomes, (vi) how much did it cost; (x) for each year since the inception of the list, how many refugee claims have been made by claimants from countries on the DCO list, broken down by country of origin; (y) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claims in (x) were (i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) abandoned, (iv) withdrawn; (z) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the failed claimants in (y) sought a review of their claim in Federal Court; (aa) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (z) were removed from Canada while their claim remained pending in Federal Court; (bb) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (z) left Canada while their claim remained pending in Federal Court; (cc) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many refugee claimants from countries on the DCO list have been deported; (dd) has the government monitored the situation of any failed refugee claimants from countries on the DCO list after they returned to their countries of origin; (ee) broken down by DCO country, how many failed claimants have been the objects of the monitoring in (dd); (ff) broken down by DCO country, regarding the monitoring of each failed claimant in (ee), (i) when did it begin, (ii) when did it end, (iii) who did it, (iv) what was its objective, (v) what was its outcome; (gg) broken down by year and country of origin, how many refugee claims by claimants from countries on the DCO list were accepted by the Federal Court after having been denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board; (hh) broken down by year and country of origin, how many of the claims in (gg) were accepted by the Federal Court after the claimant had left Canada; (ii) broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (hh) now reside in Canada; (jj) what evaluations has the government conducted of the DCO system; (kk) for each evaluation in (jj), (i) when did it begin, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) who conducted it, (iv) what were its objectives, (v) what were its outcomes, (vi) how much did it cost; (ll) since the inception of the DCO list, what groups and individuals has the government consulted about the impact of the DCO list; (mm) for each consultation in (ll), (i) when did it occur, (ii) how did it occur, (iii) what recommendations were made to the government, (iv) what recommendations were implemented by the government?

With regard to the War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Program (the Program): (a) what is the Program’s most recent report on its activities; (b) where can the report in (a) be accessed; (c) has the Program produced any reports on its activities since the 12th Report on Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program; (d) where can the reports in (c) be accessed; (e) has the Program produced any annual reports on its activities since the 11th annual report on Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program; (f) where can the reports in (e) be accessed; (g) if the Program has not produced any annual reports on its activities since the 11th annual report on Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program, what accounts for the lack of any such reports; (h) if the Program has not produced any reports on its activities since the 12th Report on Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program, what accounts for the lack of any such reports; (i) is the Program currently producing a report on its activities; (j) when will the report in (i) be publicly available; (k) what were the objectives of producing annual reports; (l) how have the objectives in (k) been achieved since the publication of (i) the 11th annual report, (ii) the 12th report; (m) for each year since the Program’s creation in 1998, what funds have been allocated to it, broken down by department or agency; (n) for each year since the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force in 2002, what funds have been allocated by Canada to the International Criminal Court; (o) for each year since the Program’s creation in 1998, how many employees were assigned to the Program, broken down by department or agency; (p) regarding the consideration of future funding options referred to in the government’s response to Q-478, provided on December 7, 2009, (i) when did it begin, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) what were its objectives, (iv) what were its outcomes, (v) who in the government was involved, (vi) who outside the government was consulted, (vii) what did it cost; (q) if the government has undertaken any considerations of future funding options since the consideration in (o), (i) when did they begin, (ii) when were they completed, (iii) what were their objectives, (iv) what were their outcomes, (v) who in the government was involved, (vi) who outside the government was consulted, (vii) what did they cost; (r) for each year since 1998, how many investigations has the Program initiated; (s) for each year since 1998, how many arrests have resulted from investigations initiated by the Program; (t) for each year since 1998, how many prosecutions have resulted from investigations initiated by the Program; (u) for each year since 1998, how many convictions have resulted from investigations initiated by the Program; (v) for each year since 1998, how many extraditions have resulted from investigations initiated by the Program, broken down by country to which the individual was extradited; (w) for each year since 1998, how many deportations have resulted from investigations initiated by the Program, broken down by country to which the individual was deported; (x) what measures does the government take to ensure that individuals extradited or deported as a result of investigations initiated by the Program face prosecution; (y) what measures does the government take to ensure that the individuals in (v) are treated fairly and humanely; (z) broken down by country of origin, how many investigations initiated by the Program are ongoing; and (aa) when did each investigation in (x) begin?

With regard to funding for programs that facilitate the reintegration of offenders into communities following incarceration: (a) for each Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) site in Canada, what funding did the government provide in each of the last ten years, broken down by department or agency providing the funding; (b) for each CoSA site in Canada, what funding will the government provide this year and in each of the next five years, broken down by department or agency providing the funding; (c) what funding has the government provided to CoSA Canada since the group’s inception in 2014, broken down by department or agency providing the funding; (d) what funding will the government provide to CoSA Canada this year and in each of the next five years, broken down by department or agency providing the funding; (e) what program evaluations of CoSA has the government conducted in the last five years; (f) for each program evaluation in (e), (i) when was it conducted, (ii) who conducted it, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) what was its outcome, (v) how much did it cost; (g) based on what factors did the government decide to cut the funding for CoSA that had been provided by Correctional Service Canada (CSC); (h) based on what factors did the government decide not to renew funding for CoSA as part of the National Demonstration Project funded by the National Crime Prevention Centre; (i) regarding the decision in (g), (i) who made it, (ii) when was it made, (iii) what groups or individuals were consulted, (iv) what ministers or ministers’ offices were involved in the decision-making process; (j) regarding the decision in (h), (i) who made it, (ii) when was it made, (iii) what groups or individuals were consulted, (iv) what ministers or ministers’ offices were involved in the decision-making process; (k) what ministers or ministers’ offices have been involved in other decisions regarding funding for CoSA; (l) in the last two years, what reports, briefing materials, briefing notes, memoranda, dossiers, dockets, assessments, presentations or other documents have been created regarding funding for CoSA; (m) for each document in (l), what is the (i) date, (ii) title, (iii) internal tracking number; (n) for each meeting held in the last two years regarding funding for CoSA, (i) when was it held, (ii) where was it held, (iii) who was present, (iv) what was the objective, (v) what was the outcome; (o) what objectives was the government seeking to achieve by providing funding for CoSA through CSC prior to March 31, 2015; (p) how will the objectives in (o) be achieved following the cut to CSC funding for CoSA effective March 31, 2015; (q) what objectives was the government seeking to achieve by funding CoSA as part of the National Demonstration Project funded by the National Crime Prevention Centre; (r) how will the objectives in (q) be achieved following the termination of funding for CoSA as part of the National Demonstration Project funded by the National Crime Prevention Centre; (s) what evaluations has the government conducted of the impact of the cut to CSC funding for CoSA; (t) for each evaluation in (s), (i) when was it conducted, (ii) who conducted it, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) what was its outcome, (v) how much did it cost; (u) what evaluations has the government conducted of the impact of the termination of funding for CoSA as part of the National Demonstration Project funded by the National Crime Prevention Centre; (v) for each evaluation in (u), (i) when was it conducted, (ii) who conducted it, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) what was its outcome, (v) how much did it cost; (w) what programs other than CoSA that aim to facilitate the reintegration of offenders into communities after their warrant expiry dates does the government run or fund; (x) for each program in (w), (i) what funding did the government provide for each of the last ten years, (ii) what funding will the government provide this year, (iii) what funding will the government provide in each of the next five years; (y) what evaluations has the government conducted in the last five years regarding the reintegration of offenders into communities following their warrant expiry dates; (z) what evaluations has the government conducted regarding the impact of CoSA and the programs in (w) on the reintegration of offenders into communities following their warrant expiry dates; (aa) for each evaluation in (y) and (z), (i) when was it conducted, (ii) who conducted it, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) what was its outcome, (v) how much did it cost; (bb) what evaluations has the government conducted regarding the impact of CoSA and the programs in (w) on recidivism rates; and (cc) for each evaluation in (bb), (i) when was it conducted, (ii) who conducted it, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) what was its outcome, (v) how much did it cost?

With regard to the process for filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada that will be created by the retirement of Justice Marshall Rothstein on August 31, 2015: (a) when did the government learn of Justice Rothstein’s intention to retire; (b) how did the government learn of Justice Rothstein’s intention to retire; (c) what steps has the government taken to find a replacement for Justice Rothstein; (d) when were each of the steps in (c) taken; (e) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to developing a process to find Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (f) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to choosing Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (g) when did the consultations in (e) occur; (h) when did the consultations in (f) occur; (i) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to developing a process to find Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (j) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to choosing Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (k) when will the consultations in (i) occur; (l) when will the consultations in (j) occur; (m) what date has the government set by which Justice Rothstein’s replacement must be nominated; (n) what date has the government set by which Justice Rothstein’s replacement must be appointed; (o) by what date does the government intend to nominate Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (p) by what date does the government intend to appoint Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (q) when were the dates in (m) to (p) set; (r) who set the dates in (m) to (p); (s) based on what factors were the dates in (m) to (p) set; (t) if no dates have been set regarding the nomination or appointment of Justice Rothstein’s replacement, why have no dates been set; (u) based on what criteria has the government evaluated candidates to replace Justice Rothstein, and if no evaluations have occurred thus far, based on what criteria will the government evaluate candidates to replace Justice Rothstein; (v) how do the criteria in (u) differ from those used to evaluate candidates in the appointment processes that led to the appointments of (i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon, (iv) Justice Côté; (w) what materials have been sought from the candidates to replace Justice Rothstein; (x) what materials will be sought from the candidates to replace Justice Rothstein; (y) how do the materials in (w) and (x) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of (i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon, (iv) Justice Côté; (z) if the materials in (w) and (x) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, Gascon and Côté, (i) why were changes made, (ii) who decided to make these changes, (iii) when was that decision made; (aa) what process has been or will be used to evaluate candidates and make an appointment to replace Justice Rothstein; (bb) in what way does the process to replace Justice Rothstein differ from the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, Gascon and Côté; (cc) if the process to replace Justice Rothstein differs from the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, Gascon and Côté, (i) why was the process changed, (ii) who decided to change it, (iii) when was the decision made to change it; (dd) in what way have parliamentarians been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (ee) what goals have been served by parliamentary involvement in previous Supreme Court appointment processes; (ff) how will the goals in (ee) be served in the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (gg) in what way have members of the legal community been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (hh) other than parliamentarians and members of the legal community, who has been or will be involved in the process to replace Justice Rothstein, and in what way; (ii) will candidates to replace Justice Rothstein be reviewed by an advisory panel; (jj) if candidates to replace Justice Rothstein will be reviewed by an advisory panel, (i) when will the panel be constituted, (ii) of how many members will it be comprised, (iii) who will select its members, (iv) based on what criteria will its members be selected, (v) what will be its mandate, (vi) who will set its mandate, (vi) will its membership include parliamentarians; (kk) will the candidate nominated to replace Justice Rothstein appear before a parliamentary committee, ad hoc or otherwise; (ll) has the process for appointing Supreme Court judges been reviewed by the government since the appointment of Justice Côté; (mm) if the process for appointing Supreme Court judges has been reviewed by the government since the appointment of Justice Côté, (i) when did the review begin, (ii) when did the review end, (iii) who conducted the review, (iv) what groups and individuals participated in the review, (v) what were the objectives of the review, (vi) what were the outcomes of the review; (nn) what has been, or what will be, the cost of the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (oo) what is the breakdown of the cost in (nn); (pp) in what way will the process to replace Justice Rothstein be (i) transparent, (ii) accountable, (iii) inclusive; and (qq) will the process used for the appointment of Justice Rothstein’s replacement be used for future appointments?

With regard to Bill C-51, An Act to Enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to Amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to Make Related and Consequential Amendments to Other Acts: (a) what studies, reports, or other documents were consulted by the government as part of the process of developing the legislation; (b) what groups or individuals were consulted by the government as part of the process of developing the legislation; (c) when did each consultation in (a) and (b) occur; (d) who carried out each consultation in (a) and (b); (e) in what way was each group or individual in (b) consulted; (f) by what process was the legislation reviewed to ascertain whether any of its provisions are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (g) what officials at the Department of Justice participated in the process in (f); (h) what groups or individuals outside the Department of Justice participated in the process in (f); (i) what changes were made to the legislation as a result of the process in (f); (j) did the government seek opinions from any group or individual outside the Department of Justice about whether any of legislation’s provisions are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (k) from what groups or individuals did the government seek the opinions in (j); (l) when did the government seek each opinion in (j); (m) when did the government receive each opinion in (j); (n) what was the cost of each opinion in (j); (o) who in the government determined that the legislation is consistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (p) on what basis did the individual or individuals in (o) make that determination; (q) has the government evaluated the likelihood of any of the legislation’s provisions being challenged before the courts; (r) what is the result of the evaluation in (q); (s) on what basis has the government made the evaluation in (q); (t) has the government evaluated the likelihood of any of the legislation’s provisions being struck down by the courts; (u) what is the result of the evaluation in (t); (v) on what basis has the government made the evaluation in (t); (w) how much money has been or will be set aside to cover the cost of litigation related to challenges of the legislation before the courts; (x) how did the government determine the amount in (w); (y) when were instructions given regarding the drafting of this legislation; (z) how long did those drafting the legislation have to consider any constitutional impacts of the legislation; (aa) were any constitutional concerns raised during the legislative drafting process and, if so, (i) what were these concerns, (ii) how were they addressed, (iii) by whom were they addressed, (iv) when were they addressed; (bb) apart from any analysis pursuant to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, in what ways did the government assess the constitutionality of this bill; (cc) in what ways did the Minister of Justice undertake to verify this bill's constitutionality; (dd) were any outside legal opinions sought relative to this legislation; (ee) in total, how many employees reviewed this legislation with a specific mandate to ascertain its constitutional compliance; (ff) what are the policy rationales for this legislation; (gg) in what ways did the government consider whether alternative policies might attain the objectives in (ff); (hh) what impact will this legislation have on the provinces and territories; (ii) if any provinces or territories were consulted, (i) when were they consulted, (ii) how were they consulted, (iii) in furtherance of what objective were they consulted; (jj) how much will this legislation cost to implement; (kk) do resources exist to implement this legislation effectively and fully; (ll) what is the basis for the government's response in (kk); (mm) by what means will this legislation be monitored and evaluated for its effectiveness; (nn) by what means and how often will this legislation be reviewed; and (oo) by what metrics will the government determine whether this legislation, once enacted, has made Canadians safer?

With regard to the use of administrative segregation in Canadian federal prisons: (a) how does the government define “administrative segregation”; (b) how has the government’s definition of “administrative segregation” changed over the past ten years; (c) with regard to the changes in (b), (i) when were they made, (ii) who made them, (iii) for what reason were they made; (d) what are the objectives of administrative segregation; (e) over the last five years, how has the use of administrative segregation met the objectives in (d); (f) over the last five years, what means of achieving the objectives in (d), other than administrative segregation, has the government (i) considered, (ii) implemented; (g) what are the costs of the means in (f); (h) what factors are considered when determining (i) whether to place an inmate in administrative segregation, (ii) the length of time an inmate spends in administrative segregation, (iii) whether to remove an inmate from administrative segregation, (iv) the conditions of an inmate’s administrative segregation; (i) if any factors in (h) have changed over the last ten years, (i) which factors changed, (ii) when did they change, (iii) who changed them, (iv) what was the objective of the change, (v) in what way has the objective been met; (j) who determines (i) whether to place an inmate in administrative segregation, (ii) the length of time an inmate spends in administrative segregation, (iii) whether to remove an inmate from administrative segregation, (iv) the conditions of an inmate’s administrative segregation; (k) in what ways does the government ensure that the use of administrative segregation in Canada complies with (i) the United Nations Convention against Torture, (ii) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (iii) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (iv) other international laws and standards; (l) over the last five years, what evaluations or studies of the use of administrative segregation has the government conducted, commissioned, or consulted; (m) what are the conclusions of the evaluations and studies in (l); (n) by what amount does placement in administrative detention increase or decrease the cost of housing an inmate; (o) for the last five years, how many inmates were held in administrative segregation, broken down by (i) year, (ii) facility; (p) for the last five years, how many inmates were held in the general population, broken down by (i) year, (ii) facility; (q) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many were held in administrative segregation for (i) less than two consecutive days, (ii) between two and seven consecutive days, (iii) between eight and 30 consecutive days, (iv) between 31 and consecutive 100 days, (v) more than 100 consecutive days; (r) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many were held in administrative segregation for a total of (i) less than two days, (ii) between two and seven days, (iii) between eight and 30 days, (iv) between 30 and 100 days, (v) over 100 days; (s) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many were placed in administrative segregation at the their own request; (t) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many were (i) visible minorities, (ii) aboriginals; (u) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many, at the time of their placement in administrative segregation, were (i) under 20 years old, (ii) between 21 and 25 years old, (iii) between 26 and 35 years old, (iv) over 36 years old; (v) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many had been sentenced to prison terms of (i) less than two years, (ii) between two and five years, (iii) between five and 10 years, (iv) between 10 and 20 years, (v) over 20 years; (w) what procedures or guidelines are in place for assessing the mental health of inmates (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) following their placement in administrative segregation; (x) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many were diagnosed with a mental illness (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) following their placement in administrative segregation; (y) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many attempted suicide (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) in the year following their placement in administrative segregation, (iv) more than a year after their placement in administrative segregation; (z) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many committed suicide (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) in the year following their placement in administrative segregation, (iv) more than a year after their placement in administrative segregation; (aa) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many committed acts of self-injury (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) in the year following their placement in administrative segregation, (iv) more than a year after their placement in administrative segregation; (bb) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many committed acts of violence against other inmates (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) in the year following their placement in administrative segregation, (iv) more than a year after their placement in administrative segregation; (cc) of the inmates in (o), broken down by year and facility, how many committed acts of violence against prison personnel (i) prior to their placement in administrative segregation, (ii) during their placement in administrative segregation, (iii) in the year following their placement in administrative segregation, (iv) more than a year after their placement in administrative segregation; (dd) while an inmate is in administrative segregation, what measures are taken to prevent the inmate from committing acts of (i) self-injury, (ii) violence against other inmates, (iii) violence against prison personnel; (ee) after an inmate is removed from administrative segregation, what measures are taken to prevent the inmate from committing acts of (i) self-injury, (ii) violence against other inmates, (iii) violence against prison personnel; (ff) of the inmates in (o), how many developed health problems while in administrative segregation, broken down by (i) year, (ii) facility; (gg) of the inmates in (o), how many died while in administrative segregation, broken down by (i) year, (ii) facility; (hh) what review of policies and practices, if any, is the government undertaking or will the government undertake; (ii) who has conducted, is conducting, or will conduct the reviews in (hh); (jj) what are the objectives of the reviews in (hh); (kk) when will the reviews in (hh) be completed; (ll) when will the results of the reviews in (hh) be made public; and (mm) what is the cost of the reviews in (hh)?

With regard to the process for appointing individuals to the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC): (a) which individuals have been appointed to SIRC over the last ten years; (b) for each individual in (a), (i) when was he or she appointed, (ii) how long was the term for which he or she was appointed, (iii) when did he or she leave SIRC; (c) for each appointment in (a), (i) when did the government begin the appointment process, (ii) what did the appointment process entail, (iii) when did the appointment process conclude; (d) for each appointment in (a), (i) who was involved in selecting the appointee, (ii) who selected the appointee, (iii) who oversaw the appointment process; (e) for each appointment in (a), what groups, individuals, or governments were consulted as part of the appointment process; (f) for each appointment in (a), how many candidates (i) applied, (ii) were considered, (iii) were contacted by the government; (g) for each appointment in (a), what is the breakdown of the cost of the appointment process; (h) how has the appointment process changed over the last ten years; (i) for each change in (h), (i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (j) according to what criteria does the government evaluate candidates; (k) how have the criteria in (j) changed in the last ten years; (l) for each change in (k), (i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) on whose authority was it made, (iv) what was its objective, (v) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (m) what reviews of the appointment process have been conducted or commissioned by the government over the last ten years; (n) what are the results of the reviews in (m); (o) what were the objectives of the reviews in (m); (p) in what ways were the objectives in (o) accomplished; (q) what reviews of the appointment process are (i) underway, (ii) planned; (r) what are the objectives of the reviews in (q); (s) when will the reviews in (q) be completed; (t) when will the results of the reviews in (q) be made public; (u) if an appointment process is currently underway, (i) when did it begin, (ii) who is overseeing or has overseen the process, (iii) who is or has been involved in the process, (iv) what group, individuals, or governments have been consulted, (v) when will the process be completed, (vi) when will the government announce the appointee; (v) how is the process in (u) different from previous appointment processes; (w) what is the breakdown of the cost of the process in (u) thus far; (x) what security or background checks are conducted on candidates; (y) who conducts security or background checks on candidates; and (z) for each appointment in the last ten years, (i) who conducted security or background checks on the candidates, (ii) what was the cost of the security or background checks?

With regard to the resettlement of refugees under the Government Assisted Refugees (GAR) program: (a) for each of the last ten years, what was the annual admissions target; (b) for each of the last ten years, what was the annual admissions target for GARs referred by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); (c) what is the breakdown, by source country, of the targets in (a) and (b); (d) for the last ten years, broken down by source country, how many refugees have been resettled in Canada; (e) for each of the last ten years, how many individuals has the UNHCR asked Canada to accept as refugees; (f) what is the breakdown, by source country, of the individuals in (e); (g) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country, how many of the individuals in (e) have been (i) deemed admissible by Canada, (ii) selected by Canada for resettlement, (iii) resettled in Canada, (iv) deemed inadmissible by Canada; (h) broken down by year and source country, for the individuals in (e) deemed inadmissible by Canada, (i) on what grounds were they deemed inadmissible, (ii) who made the determination that they were inadmissible, (iii) how was that determination communicated to the UNHCR, (iv) how was that determination communicated to the individual; (i) broken down by year and source country, how many of the individuals in (e) were deemed inadmissible by Canada (i) following an in-person interview by a Canadian visa officer, (ii) based on the results of a medical examination, (iii) based on the results of a security screening, (iv) based on the results of a criminal screening, (v) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in a criminal organization, (vi) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in human rights violations, (vii) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in terrorism; (j) based on what factors does Canada evaluate referrals from the UNHCR; (k) who carries out the evaluations in (j); (l) what changes have been made to the factors in (j) over the past ten years; (m) for each change in (l), (i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) on whose authority was it made, (iv) what was its objective, (v) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (n) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country and organization, how many individuals were referred to Canada for resettlement as refugees by organizations other than the UNHCR; (o) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country and government, how many individuals were referred to Canada for resettlement as refugees by foreign governments; (p) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country and organization, how many of the individuals in (n) have been (i) deemed admissible by Canada, (ii) selected by Canada for resettlement, (iii) resettled in Canada, (iv) deemed inadmissible by Canada, (v) denied entry into Canada; (q) broken down by year and source country, how many of the individuals in (n) have been denied resettlement in Canada (i) based on the results of a security screening, (ii) based on a finding that the claimant had engaged in criminal activity, (iii) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in a criminal organization, (iv) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in human rights violations, (v) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in terrorism; (r) what is the standard of proof for finding a claimant inadmissible for reasons of (i) criminal activity, (ii) involvement in a criminal organization, (iii) involvement in human rights violations, (iv) involvement in terrorism; (s) for each of the last ten years, have there been countries, regions, or refugee camps from which Canada did not accept refugee claimants as a matter of policy; (t) what are the countries, regions, or refugee camps in (s); (u) based on what factors did the government decide not to accept the claimants in (s); (v) who made the decisions in (u); (w) from what countries, regions, or refugee camps does Canada currently not accept refugee claimants as a matter of policy; (x) based on what factors has the government decided not to accept the claimants in (w); (y) who made the decisions in (x); (z) has Canada ever communicated to the UNHCR, formally or informally, that it would not accept claimants from particular countries, regions, or refugee camps; (aa) what are the countries, regions, or refugee camps in (z); (bb) when did Canada make the communications in (z); (cc) what was the response of the UNHCR to the communications in (z); (dd) how many requests has Canada received from the UNHCR to resettle refugees from the Camp Liberty or Camp Ashraf refugee camps in Iraq; (ee) when was each of the requests in (dd) received; (ff) how many of the refugees in (dd) has Canada (i) accepted, (ii) resettled in Canada, (iii) rejected; (gg) based on what factors did Canada reject the claimants in (dd); (hh) for each of the last ten years, what groups has Canada undertaken to resettle via group processing; (ii) for each group in (hh), (i) when did Canada decide to resettle members of the group via group processing, (ii) who made that decision, (iii) on whose authority was the decision made, (iv) based on what factors was that decision made, (v) how many members of the group has the government undertaken to resettle in Canada, (vi) how many members of the group does the government intend to resettle in Canada, (vii) how many members of the group have been resettled in Canada; (jj) since the start of the ongoing conflict in Syria in 2011, how many refugees from Syria has the government committed to resettle in Canada; (kk) when, how, and to whom did the government make the commitment in (jj); (ll) who determined the number of refugees in (jj); (mm) based on what factors was the determination in (jj) made; (nn) what changes have been made to the factors in (mm) since the start of the ongoing conflict in Syria in 2011; (oo) for each change in (nn), (i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) on whose authority was it made, (iv) what was its objective, (v) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (pp) since the start of the ongoing conflict in Syria in 2011, broken down by month, how many refugee claimants from Syria have been (i) resettled in Canada, (ii) deemed admissible by Canada, (iii) deemed inadmissible by Canada; (qq) based on what factors were claimants in (pp) deemed inadmissible by Canada; and (rr) what accounts for any discrepancy between the number of claimants in (pp) deemed admissible by Canada and the number of claimants in (pp) resettled in Canada?

With regard to the role of Canadian diplomatic personnel in respect to the operations of Canadian extractive companies outside Canada: (a) what is this role; (b) what policies, guidelines, and directives govern this role; (c) for each of the policies, guidelines, and directives in (b), (i) when was it enacted, (ii) by whom was it enacted, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) has its objective been met, (v) how does the government determine whether its objective has been met, (vi) how was it communicated to Canadian diplomatic personnel, (vii) what former policy, guideline, or directive did it replace or modify; (d) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel support the operations of Canadian extractive companies; (e) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel facilitate the establishment of new operations, projects, or facilities by Canadian extractive companies; (f) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel intervene in interactions between Canadian extractive companies and (i) local governments, (ii) local law enforcement, (iii) local civil society, (iv) local residents; (g) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to ensure compliance by Canadian extractive companies with (i) local laws and regulations, (ii) Canadian laws and regulations, (iii) international laws and regulations, (iv) local standards regarding human rights, (v) Canadian standards regarding human rights, (vi) international standards regarding human rights, (vii) local standards regarding environmental protection, (viii) Canadian standards regarding environmental protection, (ix) international standards regarding environmental protection; (h) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to reduce resistance to the operations of Canadian extractive companies on the part of (i) local governments, (ii) local civil society, (iii) local residents; (i) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel help Canadian extractive companies reduce resistance to their operations on the part of (i) local governments, (ii) local civil society, (iii) local residents; (j) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to facilitate the operations of Canadian extractive companies by advocating for changes to local laws or regulations; (k) in what ways do Canadian diplomatic personnel seek to facilitate the operations of Canadian extractive companies by advocating against changes to local laws or regulations; (l) based on what factors do Canadian diplomatic missions evaluate requests from extractive companies for assistance or services, including services offered as part of the Global Markets Action Plan; (m) for each of the last five years, broken down by country where the diplomatic mission is located, how many requests for assistance or services have Canadian diplomatic missions received from Canadian extractive companies; (n) for each request in (m), (i) what company made the request, (ii) what assistance or service was sought by the company, (iii) what assistance or service was provided to the company, (iv) who evaluated the request, (v) if the request was not granted, on what grounds was it not granted, (vi) who provided the assistance or service, (vii) what was the cost of providing the assistance or service, (viii) what was the objective of providing the assistance or service, (ix) in what way was that objective achieved; (o) in what circumstances do Canadian diplomatic missions provide assistance or services, including services offered as part of the Global Markets Action Plan, to an extractive company without a request from that company; (p) for each of the last five years, broken down by country where the diplomatic mission is located, (i) what companies have received assistance or services from a Canadian diplomatic mission without making a request, (ii) what was the nature of that assistance or service, (iii) who made the decision to provide the assistance or service, (iv) who provided the assistance or service, (v) what was the cost of providing the assistance or service, (vi) what was the objective of providing the assistance or service, (vii) in what way was that objective achieved; (q) for each of the last five years, broken down by country, in what legal proceedings outside Canada involving Canadian extractive companies has Canada intervened; (r) for each intervention in (q), (i) what was the nature of the intervention, (ii) what was the objective of the intervention, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to intervene, (v) who carried out the intervention, (vi) what outside counsel was retained, (vii) what is the breakdown of the cost of the intervention, (viii) what are the access or control numbers of any legal filings made by Canada; (s) based on what criteria do Canadian diplomatic personnel determine whether a Canadian extractive company is complying with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards, particularly those standards set out in November 2014 in Doing Business the Canadian Way: A Strategy to Advance CSR in Canada’s Extractive Sector Abroad; (t) how frequently do Canadian diplomatic personnel evaluate the compliance of Canadian companies with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (u) what action do Canadian diplomatic personnel take when a company is found not to comply with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (v) for each of the last five years, broken down by country in which the diplomatic mission is located, what extractive companies have been deemed in non-compliance with Canada’s corporate social responsibility standards; (w) for each company in (v), what action has been taken by Canadian diplomatic personnel to address the non-compliance; (x) what training do Canadian diplomatic personnel receive to ensure that they can advise and monitor Canadian extractive companies with respect to corporate social responsibility; (y) what assistance or services have Canadian diplomatic personnel provided to (i) Tahoe Resources in Guatemala, (ii) Nevsun Resources in Eritrea, (iii) Fortuna Silver in Mexico, (iv) Excellon Resources in Mexico, (v) IAMGOLD in Ecuador, (vi) Cornerstone Capital Resources in Ecuador, (vii) Kinross Gold Corporation in Ecuador, (viii) Lundin Mining in Ecuador, (ix) Barrick Gold in Chile, (x) Goldcorp in Chile, (xi) Yamana Gold in Argentina, (xii) Barrick Gold in Peru, (xiii) Candente Copper in Peru, (xiv) Bear Creek Mining in Peru, (xv) HudBay Minerals in Peru, (xvi) Eldorado Gold in Greece, (xvii) Esperanza Resources in Mexico, (xviii) TVI Pacific in the Philippines, (xix) Infinito Gold in Costa Rica, (xx) Blackfire Exploration in Mexico, (xxi) Skye Resources in Guatemala, (xxii) Glamis Gold in Guatemala; (z) for each instance in (y) of providing assistance or service, (i) what was the cost, (ii) what was the objective, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to provide the assistance or service, (v) who provided the assistance or service; (aa) what lobbying or advocacy activities have Canadian diplomatic personnel undertaken with respect to (i) laws relating to the extractive sector in Guatemala, including Decree 22-2014, (ii) laws relating to the extractive sector in Ecuador, including Ley Orgánica Reformatoria a la Ley de Minería, a la Ley Reformatoria para la Equidad Tributaria en el Ecuador y a la Ley Orgánica de Régimen Tributario Interno in Ecuador, (iii) laws relating to the extractive sector in Honduras, including amendments to the Honduran General Mining Law; and (bb) for each instance of lobbying or advocacy in (aa), (i) what was the cost, (ii) what was the objective, (iii) in what way was the objective achieved, (iv) who made the decision to engage in lobbying or advocacy, (v) who carried out the lobbying or advocacy?

With regard to federal judicial appointments from 1993 to 2014 inclusive: (a) broken down by year, province, and 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) Francophones, (iii) Aboriginals, 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 identity, 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 identity; (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 identity; (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?

With regard to applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children of Canadian residents: (a) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of Canadian citizens; (b) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (a), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (c) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children of non-citizen permanent residents of Canada, excluding the Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP); (d) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (c), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (e) broken down by source country and year of application, for each of the last ten years, how many applications has CIC received from applicants seeking permanent residence as dependent children under the LCP; (f) broken down by source country and year of application, how many of the applications in (e), (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been denied, (iii) are still being processed; (g) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a); (h) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (a) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (i) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (a) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (j) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c); (k) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (c) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (l) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (c) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (m) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e); (n) broken down by source country and year of application, what is the average processing time of applications in (e) by applicants who, at the time of their application, were (i) under 15 years old, (ii) between 15 and 17 years old, (iii) over 17 years old; (o) broken down by source country and year of application, how many applications in (e) were denied or abandoned subsequent to the applicant becoming too old to qualify as a dependent; (p) has the government set processing times it considers acceptable for applications by applicants seeking permanent residence in Canada as dependent children (i) of Canadian citizens, (ii) of non-citizen permanent residents, (iii) under the live-in caregiver program; (q) how were the acceptable processing times in (p) determined; (r) who determined the acceptable processing times in (p); (s) what variance, if any, exists for acceptable processing times in (p) based on (i) source country, (ii) age of applicant, (iii) visa office, (iv) other factors; (t) what changes, if any, have been made to the acceptable processing times in (p) over the last ten years, and what accounts for these changes; (u) if no acceptable processing times have been set, why have they not been set; (v) what evaluations of processing times has the government undertaken; (w) what were the results of the evaluations in (v); (x) if no evaluations of processing times have been undertaken, why has this not been done; (y) broken down by year, for each of the last ten years, what operational bulletins, changes to operational manuals, or other directives, published or unpublished, formal or informal, written or oral, have been issued by CIC to visa officers regarding applications by individuals seeking permanent residence as dependents of residents of Canada; (z) for each of the directives in (y), (i) how was the directive issued, (ii) by whom was it issued, (iii) what was the objective of the directive, (iv) how were its effects evaluated, (v) is it still in force; and (aa) for each directive in (y) no longer in force, (i) why was it terminated, (ii) who made the decision to terminate it, (iii) how was the decision to terminate it communicated to visa officers?

With regard to the changes announced in October 2014 to the Caregiver Program (the Program), formerly known as the Live-In Caregiver Program: (a) what individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments did the government consult as part of the process of developing the changes; (b) when did each consultation in (a) occur; (c) how did each consultation in (a) occur; (d) who in the government carried out each consultation in (a); (e) for past or current participants in the Program, (i) what opportunities existed to participate in consultations, (ii) how did the government make them aware of these opportunities, (iii) when did the government make them aware of these opportunities; (f) for other individuals, organizations, agencies, and other governments, (i) how did the government make them aware of the opportunity to participate in consultations, (ii) when did the government make them aware of the opportunity; (g) what results of the consultations in (a) were presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (h) how were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (i) when were the results of the consultations in (a) presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; (j) according to what criteria were the inputs that were received through consultations in (a) evaluated by the government; (k) what studies, reports, surveys, or other documents were consulted by the government; (l) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for Children Pathway; (m) based on what factors did the government cap at 2750 the number of applicants for permanent residence through the Caring for People with High Medical Needs Pathway; (n) what was the number of principal applicants for permanent residence through the Program for each of the last ten years; (o) do the caps in (l) and (m) refer only to the number of new applications that the government will accept each year, or do they refer to the total number of applications that will be processed each year; (p) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents are currently in Canada as part of the Program; (q) broken down by province and territory, how many temporary residents have been in Canada as part of the Program for each of the last ten years; (r) how many temporary residents does the government expect to be in Canada as part of the Program for each of the next ten years; (s) what studies has the government carried out or consulted to determine whether the number of temporary residents in Canada as part of the Program is likely to change in the coming years; (t) what are the conclusions of the studies in (s); (u) for each of the last ten years, not including spouses and dependents, how many applications for permanent residence under the Program have been (i) submitted, (ii) accepted, (iii) denied; (v) if the number of principal applicants for permanent residence exceeds the cap of 2750 in either category in a given year, how will the government determine which applications to consider; (w) who will make the determination in (v); (x) based on what factors will the determination in (v) be made; (y) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program are currently being processed, not including spouses and dependents; (z) how many applications for permanent residence under the Program, not including spouses and dependents, does the government intend to process for each of the next five years; (aa) how will the government reduce the backlog of permanent residence applications under the program; (bb) by what date does the government intend to reduce the backlog in (aa); (cc) how many applications must be processed before the government will consider the backlog in (aa) to be reduced; (dd) when will the six-month limit on processing times for applications under the Program take effect; (ee) what impact will the six-month limit in (dd) have on applications underway at the time the limit takes effect; (ff) what measures will be implemented to ensure that applications for permanent residence will be processed within six months; (gg) what recourse will be available to applicants whose applications are not processed within six months; (hh) how will applications that remain in process after six months be dealt with by the government; (ii) will the six-month limit apply regardless of (i) the number of dependents, (ii) the country of origin of the principal applicants, their spouse, or their dependents; (jj) what measures are being introduced to give recourse to temporary residents in Canada under the Program who feel that they are being exploited or treated inappropriately by their employers, whether or not the caregiver lives with the employer; (kk) what changes have been made or will be made to the criteria used to evaluate applications for permanent residence under the Program; (ll) what directives have been or will be issued to visa officers; (mm) when do the directives in (ll) take effect; and (nn) how will applicants with applications currently underway be affected by the changes?

With regard to the process for filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada that will be created by the retirement of Justice Louis Lebel: (a) when did the government learn of Justice Lebel’s intention to retire on November 30, 2014; (b) how did the government learn of Justice Lebel’s intention to retire on November 30, 2014; (c) what steps has the government taken to find a replacement for Justice Lebel; (d) when were each of the steps in (c) taken; (e) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to developing a process to find Justice Lebel’s replacement; (f) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to choosing Justice Lebel’s replacement; (g) when did the consultations in (e) occur; (h) when did the consultations in (f) occur; (i) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to developing a process to find Justice Lebel’s replacement; (j) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to choosing Justice Lebel’s replacement; (k) when will the consultations in (i) occur; (l) when will the consultations in (j) occur; (m) what date has the government set by which Justice Lebel’s replacement must be nominated; (n) what date has the government set by which Justice Lebel’s replacement must be appointed; (o) by what date does the government intend to nominate Justice Lebel’s replacement; (p) by what date does the government intend to appoint Justice Lebel’s replacement; (q) when were the dates in (m) to (p) set; (r) who set the dates in (m) to (p); (s) based on what factors were the dates in (m) to (p) set; (t) if no dates have been set regarding the nomination or appointment of Justice Lebel’s replacement, why have no dates been set; (u) has the government examined the consequences, legal and otherwise, of allowing a Supreme Court seat to be vacant; (v) what are the results of the examination in (u); (w) when did the examination in (u) begin; (x) when did the examination in (u) end; (y) who carried out the examination in (u); (z) if the government has not carried out the examination in (u), why has it not done so; (aa) will the government examine the consequences, legal and otherwise, of allowing a Supreme Court seat to be vacant; (bb) if the government will not carry out the examination in (aa), why will it not do so; (cc) based on what criteria has the government evaluated candidates to replace Justice Lebel, or, if no evaluations have occurred thus far, based on what criteria will the government evaluate candidates to replace Justice Lebel; (dd) how do the criteria in (cc) differ from those used to evaluate candidates in the appointment processes that led to the appointments of (i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon; (ee) what materials have been sought from the candidates to replace Justice Lebel; (ff) what materials will be sought from the candidates to replace Justice Lebel; (gg) how do the materials in (ee) and (ff) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of (i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon; (hh) if the materials in (ee) and (ff) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, and Gascon, (i) why were changes made, (ii) who decided to make these changes, (iii) when was that decision made; (ii) when did the “reconsideration” of the appointment process referred to in the government’s response to Q-543 begin; (jj) who made the decision to reconsider the Supreme Court appointment process; (kk) on what date was the decision in (jj) made; (ll) what has the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process entailed; (mm) who has been involved in the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (nn) what has been the role of each of the individuals in (mm) in the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (oo) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments have been consulted as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (pp) were parliamentarians consulted as part of the reconsideration process, and if so, whom; (qq) what meetings have occurred as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process, (i) on what dates, (ii) with whom present, (iii) with what goals, (iv) with what outcomes; (rr) what documents, memos, briefing notes, or other materials have been created as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (ss) what are the dates of creation and file or reference numbers of the materials in (rr); (tt) who developed the materials in (rr); (uu) to whom have the materials in (rr) been distributed; (vv) what research, reports, books, articles, or other reference materials has the government consulted as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (ww) what are the objectives of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (xx) when did the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process end, or if it is ongoing, when does the government intend to end it; (yy) if the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process is ongoing, (i) what will the remainder of the reconsideration entail, (ii) who will be involved in the remainder of the reconisderation, (iii) what will be the role of each of the individuals, agencies, organizations, and governments involved, (iv) when will parliamentarians be consulted, (v) in what way will parliamentarians be consulted; (zz) when did the government last engage in a reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (aaa) in what way is the current reconsideration similar to or different from the last reconsideration; (bbb) what are the results of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (ccc) when will the results of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process be made public; (ddd) what has been the cost of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (eee) what is the breakdown of the cost of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process thus far; (fff) if the reconsideration is ongoing, (i) what will be the total cost of the reconsideration, (ii) what is the breakdown of the cost; (ggg) what process has been or will be used to evaluate candidates and make an appointment to replace Justice Lebel; (hhh) in what way have parliamentarians been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Lebel; (iii) what goals have been served by parliamentary involvement in previous Supreme Court appointment processes; (jjj) how will the goals in (iii) be served in the process to replace Justice Lebel; (kkk) in what way have members of the legal community been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Lebel; (lll) other than parliamentarians and members of the legal community, who has been or will be involved in the process to replace Justice Lebel, and in what way; (mmm) what steps has the government taken, or what steps will the government take, to ensure that Justice Lebel’s replacement is eligible to fill one of the seats reserved for Quebec pursuant to section 6 of the Supreme Court Act; (nnn) who has carried out, or who will carry out, the legal analysis to ensure that Justice Lebel’s replacement is eligible to fill one of the seats reserved for Quebec pursuant to section 6 of the Supreme Court Act; (ooo) when was the legal analysis in (nnn) carried out; (ppp) what has been the cost of the analysis in (nnn); (qqq) what is the breakdown of the cost of the analysis in (nnn); (rrr) what has been, or what will be, the cost of the process to replace Justice Lebel; (sss) what is the breakdown of the cost in (rrr); (ttt) in what way will the process to replace Justice Lebel be (i) transparent, (ii) accountable, (iii) inclusive; and (uuu) will the process used for the appointment of Justice Lebel’s replacement be used for future appointments?

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

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

With regard to disclosures by telecom and Internet providers (“providers”) of subscriber information: (a) what government agencies and departments request such data; (b) how many such requests have been made in the past five years, broken down by year and requestor; (c) from what providers has the government made requests in the last year; (d) from what providers has the government made requests in the past five years; (e) what is the breakdown of requests by agency and provider in (d); (f) how many individuals have had their subscriber data given to the government in the past five years, broken down by year; (g) what limits exist on what data or information the government can request from providers; (h) what limits exist on what data or information providers can supply; (i) in what ways are persons notified that their data has been requested; (j) in what ways are persons notified that their data has been provided; (k) are there any restrictions on how often the government is allowed to request data from providers generally and, if so, what are they; (l) are there any restrictions on how often the government is allowed to request data from providers relative to a specific user and, if so, what are these; (m) what are the restrictions, if any, to the amount or type of data providers may access in responding to a government request; (n) what sort of information may providers furnish about subscribers without a court order; (o) what does subscriber information entail; (p) what does the government seek when it requests subscriber information; (q) are there any restrictions on when a provider may inform its customers that a government agency has requested data; (r) have any of the government policies that pertain to requests for an access to subscriber data changed in the past five years and, if so, how; (s) how much money did the government spend on data requests, broken down by year, expense type, and the agency incurring the expense, for the past five years; (t) how much money did the government spend on storing and retaining data, broken down by year, expense type, and the agency incurring the expense, for the past five years; (u) how much money did the government spend assessing received data, broken down by year, expense type, and the agency incurring the expense, for the past five years; (v) how much money did the government spend to act upon received data, broken down by year, expense type, and the agency incurring the expense, for the past five years; (w) how often did the disclosure of data lead to action by the government; (x) for calendar year 2013, how many persons were charged with offences under an Act of Parliament where the government had requested subscriber data; (y) for what purposes does the government request subscriber data; (z) what evidence of their concern, if any, must government agencies have for requests for data on grounds of (i) child exploitation, (ii) terrorism, (iii) national security, (iv) foreign intelligence; (aa) what are the definitions and criteria established by the government relative to the enumerated categories in (z); (bb) how often are requests made relative to the enumerated categories in (z); (cc) what grounds other than those enumerated categories in (z) has the government identified as warranting subscriber data requests; (dd) what avenues exist for Canadians to contest governmental demands for access to data sent over communication devices; (ee) what avenues exist for providers to refuse a government request in this regard; (ff) broken down by requesting entity, what is the process by which a data request is made; (gg) in instances where Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) has “incidentally” captured Canadians’ personal information, are there any protocols on what is done with that information; (hh) with respect to (gg), are there any restrictions on how long CSEC or another agency may keep the ‘incidentally’ captured data or on what they may do with it and, if so, what are these; (ii) of the data received by the government, how often and in what ways has it proved useful in ensuring the safety of Canadian citizens; (jj) of Canadians whose data was requested, how much data was provided with respect to (i) usage, (ii) geolocation of device (broken down between real-time and historical), (iii) call detail records (as obtained by number recorders or by disclosure of stored data), (iv) text message content, (v) voicemail, (vi) cell tower logs, (vii) real-time interception of communications, (viii) transmission data, (ix) other data requests; (kk) with respect to the categories in (jj), does the government request all such data in every case; (ll) how does the government determine what data to seek in each case, by what process and criteria, and with what reviews; (mm) with respect to the categories in (jj), does the government not request data with respect to any of them and if not, why not; (nn) with respect to the information types in (jj), which government agencies made such requests in the past five years, and what records are made of the requests; (oo) what records are stored with respect to data requests; (pp) how is the data received stored and for how long; (qq) who or what has access to obtained data; (rr) what is the average amount of time for which government requests data from law enforcement with respect to a specific individual; (ss) how quickly are providers required to respond regarding their ability to provide each type of data provided; (tt) how quickly must providers respond to government requests; (uu) in the past three years did the government provide money or any other form of compensation, including tax breaks, in exchange for information being provided to government agencies, and, if so, what were these; (vv) in what ways has the government consulted with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that data requests comply with privacy law; (ww) with what experts has the government consulted regarding requests for subscriber data; (xx) what protocols are in place to ensure that privacy rights are respected in this process; and (yy) how often has the government met with providers to discuss data requests, and when was the most recent such meeting?

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

With regard to the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon: (a) who did what and when prior to the Selection Panel being convened; (b) who determined the process to be followed with respect to the most recent appointment process to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC); (c) was the process for Justice Wagner designed with the departure of Justice Fish a year later in mind; (d) was the process for Justice Nadon designed with the forthcoming departure of Justice LeBel in mind; (e) in the breakdown of appointment process costs provided in the answer to Q-239, what accounts for the "Acquisition of Machinery and Equipment" cost associated with the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon; (f) was there a competitive bidding process with respect to the goods and services in (a); (g) what accounts for the greater cost of "Legal Services" for the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon relative to the reported costs provided in the answer to Q-239 for other Justices; (h) are the costs for the legal opinions of Justices Binnie and Charron included in the "Legal Services" heading for the appointment process of Justice Marc Nadon reported in the answer to Q-239; (i) if the answer to (f) is no, under what heading are these opinion costs found and, if not reported in the answer to Q-239, where are they reported; (j) were the legal opinions of any Quebec jurists explicitly sought with respect to the eligibility of Justice Marc Nadon and, if so, (i) whose opinions were sought, (ii) on what date, (iii) at what cost; (k) were the legal opinions of any Quebec jurists explicitly sought with respect to the eligibility of a federal judge to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC and, if so, (i) whose opinions were sought, (ii) on what date, (iii) at what cost; (l) how long will the materials relative to Justice Nadon's appointment remain on the website for the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada; (m) when were these materials first posted; (n) under what guidelines will they be removed; (o) how was the decision to seek outside legal advice relative to Justice Nadon's eligibility made, (i) by whom, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (p) did the Department of Justice render an internal opinion as to the eligibility of Justice Nadon to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC; (q) what assessment or evaluation of the Nadon nomination has the government undertaken to improve the process for the next appointment; (r) what assessment, evaluation, or review of the Nadon nomination will the government undertake so as to learn from it; (s) with respect to the statement of the Minister reported by CBC on March 24, 2014, that "we'll examine our options as we ensure that the Supreme Court has its full complement" what specific options were considered by the government; (t) did the government consider re-naming Justice Nadon after the decision in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 and, if not, why did the Minister not rule this out when asked subsequent to the ruling's release; (u) on what specific dates did the Selection Panel engage in consultations relative to the process that resulted in the nomination of Justice Nadon; (v) did any consultations or meetings of the Selection Panel occur after July 15, 2013; (w) were any outside lawyers consulted on the amendments made to the Supreme Court Act during the nomination of Justice Marc Nadon; (x) was Quebec consulted on the amendments made to the Supreme Court Act during the nomination of Justice Marc Nadon; (y) was the Barreau du Quebec consulted on the amendments made to the Supreme Court Act during the nomination of Justice Marc Nadon; (z) were any documents, presentations, or memos prepared for ministers or their staff, from April 1, 2013 to present regarding Justice Marc Nadon and, if so, what are (i) the dates, (ii) the titles or subject-matters, (iii) the department, commission, or agency's internal tracking number; (aa) with respect to the Minister's appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Thursday, November 21, 2013, wherein he deferred to Ms. Laurie Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice) on a question regarding consultations in the matter of changes to the Supreme Court Act and wherein she said "In this particular case, I'm not aware that there were any consultations with the Barreau du Québec. It's not unusual for the government to consult in circumstances such as this, though", (i) were there any consultations with the Barreau du Quebec and, if so, on what dates, (ii) was the Minister aware personally of consultations, (iii) what role would the Minister personally play in such consultations in 'usual' circumstances, (iv) if there were no consultations, why were none held, (v) were any consultations requested by the government in this regard; (bb) with respect to the various costs reported in the response to Q-74 related to Ms. Louise Charron, Mr. Ian Binnie and Professor Peter Hogg, what accounts for the difference in these costs; (cc) were the three named individuals asked the same total number of questions and with the same exact wording; (dd) in addition to these individuals referenced in part (z), who else was asked and on what date with respect to the question of the eligibility of a federal judge to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC; (ee) with respect to the statement of the Minister of Justice in the House on October 17, 2013, "The eligibility and the opinion that we have received from Mr. Justice Ian Binnie, which has also been endorsed by Supreme Court Justice Louise Charron, as well as a noted constitutional expert Peter Hogg, is very clear", (i) when were Justice Charron and Professor Hogg provided the opinion for Justice Binnie, (ii) how long did they have to review it before reporting to the government; (ff) with respect to the statement of the Minister of Justice before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on November 21, 2013, that "legal opinion prepared by respected former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie which [...] was supported by his former colleague, the Honourable Louise Charron, as well as by noted constitutional expert, Professor Peter Hogg", (i) did the Minister use "supported" to mean "endorsed", (ii) did the Minister mean that all conclusions were agreed in wholeheartedly by those cited; (gg) with respect to the Minister's comments before the Ad Hoc Committee on the Appointment of SCC Justices that "I would add that this opinion was reviewed by several eminently qualified individuals, including the Honourable Louise Charron as a former judge of the Supreme Court of Canada herself. The opinion was also reviewed by Professor Peter Hogg, a recognized constitutional expert and author. Both of them expressed unequivocal support for Mr. Justice Binnie's conclusions", is "several" used to mean "more than two but not many" as defined by the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2 ed.) and (i) if so, who other than Justice Charron and Prof. Hogg is included in the class of "eminently qualified individuals" who reviewed this opinion, (ii) if not, in what sense was the word "several" used in this context and to convey what; (hh) was Justice Binnie informed that his opinion would be made public and, if so, was this part of the arrangement the government made with him; (ii) can Justice Charron publicly release her opinion that was rendered to the government and, if not, why not; (jj) can Professor Hogg publicly release his opinion that was rendered to the government and, if not, why not; (kk) will the government release the opinions of Justice Charron and Prof. Hogg and, if not, why not; (ll) how did the government decide from whom to seek opinions; (mm) how did the government determine whose opinions to release; (nn) other than the Minister of Justice, who in the Department of Justice, in the Prime Minister's Office, and in the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada reviewed the Charron and Hogg opinions; (oo) where are the Charron and Hogg opinions currently stored, who has access to them, and what is the plan for retention; (pp) concerning the Selection Panel that considered Justice Marc Nadon’s candidacy, (i) how were members of the Panel chosen, (ii) what qualifications were sought, (iii) how did each of the members of the Panel meet the qualifications in (ii), (iv) what measures are in place to ensure that Aboriginal candidates are considered in the work of the Panel; (qq) who was the Executive Director of the SCC Selection Committee for this process and how was this person selected; (rr) what protections were in place to ensure that members of the Panel elevated mid-summer to Cabinet were not influenced by their Cabinet role in the work of the Panel; (ss) with respect to the Prime Minister’s statement regarding Justice Nadon in the House on April 1, 2014, that “pendant les consultations, tous les partis de la Chambre étaient d'accord avec l'idée qu'on pouvait nommer un Québécois de la Cour fédérale à la Cour suprême”, (i) to what consultations is the Prime Minister referring, (ii) was the Prime Minister part of these consultations and if so in what capacity, (iii) if the Prime Minister was not part of these consultations, by what means was he informed of their contents, (iv) to what extent are these consultations public, (v) if these consultations were public, in what manner can records of them be accessed, (vi) if these consultations were not public, are their contents protected by any privilege or confidentiality agreement and if so, what are the consequences for any individual breaking consultation confidentiality, if any, (vii) on what basis was this statement made, (viii) how can a party involved in these consultations express its disagreement “avec l'idée qu'on pouvait nommer un Québécois de la Cour fédérale à la Cour supreme”, (ix) how can a disagreement, such as the Prime Minister suggests did not occur, be made public within the ordinary course of consultations; and (tt) with respect to the Prime Minister’s statement in the House on April 1, 2014, that “Évidemment, c'est une grande surprise de découvrir qu'il y a une règle tout à fait différente pour le Québec que pour le reste du Canada”, (i) when was the Prime Minister first informed that there exists a different rule for the appointment of judges from Quebec vis-a-vis the rest of Canada to the Supreme Court of Canada, (ii) did the Prime Minister personally solicit, receive, and review legal advice on this point within the context of the Marc Nadon appointment, (iii) what steps were taken to mitigate any such surprises that might arise during the appointment process?

With regard to costs and expenses related to appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada: (a) what accounts for the difference in costs between appointment processes; (b) who and what entities submit costs for reimbursement; (c) are any costs rejected for reimbursement and, if so, (i) on what basis, (ii) who makes the determination, (iii) what criteria are used in making the determination; (d) what reimbursement requests were rejected for the appointment processes of (i) Justice M. Rothstein, (ii) Justice T. Cromwell, (iii) Justice M. Moldaver and Justice A. Karakatsanis, (iv) Justice R. Wager, (v) Justice M. Nadon; (e) in the breakdown of appointment process costs provided in the answer to Q-239, how are the following categories defined (i) Travel and Telecommunications, (ii) Information and Printing Services, (iii) Legal Services, (iv) Translation and Professional Services, (v) Rentals, (vi) Miscellaneous Supplies, (vii) Acquisition of Machinery and Equipment; (f) what types of costs are included under the headings (i) Travel and Telecommunications, (ii) Information and Printing Services, (iii) Legal Services, (iv) Translation and Professional Services, (v) Rentals, (vi) Miscellaneous Supplies, (vii) Acquisition of Machinery and Equipment; (g) who bears the costs incurred in the following categories and, if costs are shared, with which entity or entities are they shared: (i) Travel and Telecommunications, (ii) Information and Printing Services, (iii) Legal Services, (iv) Translation and Professional Services, (v) Rentals, (vi) Miscellaneous Supplies, (vii) Acquisition of Machinery and Equipment; (h) why are there no “Information and Printing” costs associated with Justice Cromwell’s appointment; (i) what was the maximum budget set for the appointment processes reported in the government’s answer to written question Q-239; (j) what accounts for the greater costs of “Translation and Professional Services” for the appointment of Justice Wagner relative to the reported costs provided in the government’s answer to written question Q-239 for other Justices; (k) what accounts for the great increase in rentals costs for “Rentals” associated with the appointment of Mr. Justice Wagner compared to other Justices reported in the answer to Q-239; (l) what ensures transparency with respect to the costs incurred in judicial appointments; (m) who assess the reasonableness of costs incurred, and how; (n) who assesses the legitimacy of expenses, and how; (o) are receipts that are related to the appointments process consultable and, if so, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) under what circumstances; (p) who ultimately approves the expenses and what is the role of Treasury Board in this regard, if any; and (q) is there a maximum budget set for an appointment process and, if so, (i) what is it, (ii) how and when was it determined?

With regard to bijuralism and harmonization: (a) what measures are in place to ensure legislative bijuralism across all departments; (b) since the adoption of the “Policy on Legislative Bijuralism”, how has the Department of Justice (i) ensured that all legal counsel in the Department are made aware of the requirements of legislative bijuralism in order for them to be able to take it into account when advising client departments on legislative reforms, (ii) enhanced the capacity of the Legislative Services Branch to draft bijural legislative texts, (iii) undertook, in drafting both versions of every bill and proposed regulation that touches on provincial or territorial private law, to take care to reflect the terminology, concepts, notions and institutions of both of Canada’s private law systems; (c) since the adoption of the “Policy for Applying the Civil Code of Quebec to Federal Government Activities”, what measures are in place to ensure (i) changes to Quebec’s Civil Code are known and monitored by the government, (ii) assessment of federal legislation relative to changes to Quebec’s Civil Code, (iii) federal legislation is introduced to reflect, where necessary, changes to the Civil Code of Quebec; (d) with respect to the “Index of Bijuralism and Harmonization Caselaw” found online and indicating its most recent update was June 12, 2012, (i) how often is this page updated, (ii) given that some cases thereupon are from 2013, when was this page last updated, (iii) whose responsibility is it to update this page, (iv) what cases are currently being monitored for potential addition to this page; (e) with respect to cases involving bijuralism and harmonization, (i) in what ways are these made known to the Department, (ii) whose responsibility it is to monitor these cases, (iii), what role does the Federal government play in these cases if a party, (iv) what role does the government play if not a party, (v) who makes the determination and as to when the government should intervene if not a party and how is this decision made; (f) with respect to Bijurilex, whose website at http://www.bijurilex.gc.ca/ appeared not to function as of March 17, 2014, (i) is this website still available, (ii) if not, when was it taken off-line and why, (iii) where can its former contents be found; (g) what resources exist to provide information about the implications and challenges of bijuralism as it relates to legislation; (h) with respect to the bijuralism publication of the Department entitled “THE LINK”, (i) how often is it published, (ii) when is it next expected, (iii) what causes it to be published, (iv) who prepares it, (v) how is it disseminated and to whom; (i) what specialized consultative services are offered to the government with regard to bijuralism issues; (j) when were the most recent services in (i) sought and provided, and at what cost; (k) what studies have been undertaken within the last five years regarding (i) the relationship between federal law and the law of the provinces and territories, (ii) between the common law and civil law legal traditions, (iii) between these legal traditions and Aboriginal law; (l) what studies are presently being undertaken regarding (i) the relationship between federal law and the law of the provinces and territories, (ii) between the common law and civil law legal traditions, (iii) between these legal traditions and Aboriginal law; (m) what training courses on bijuralism and comparative law have been developed for Justice Canada’s legislative drafters, (i) how often are they offered, (ii) how many participate, (iii) are they open to individuals from other departments; (n) what bijural drafting notes and course material for training on bijuralism have been developed in the past five years and by what means are these accessible (i) within the Department of Justice, (ii) across the government, (iii) to the legal community, (iv) to the public; (o) what issues and challenges of legislative bijuralism has the government most recently identified and how does it seek to address these; (p) what issues and challenges of harmonization has the government most recently identified and how does it seek to address these; (q) what is the content of the departmental policy on the application of Quebec civil law to the government; (r) what was the mandate and role of the Civil Code Section upon its creation and how did the role and mandate change over time; (s) in what ways does the government review any situation in which legal rights are in issue or proceeding under Quebec civil law which concerns the government; (t) in what ways has the government ensured inclusion of Quebec civil law in the curriculum of the Departmental continuing education programs; (u) with respect to the Department’s recognition that “si le bijuridisme vise d’abord le respect et la prise en compte du droit civil et de la common law dans le contexte fédéral, notamment en matière de rédaction et d’interprétation des textes législatifs fédéraux, il n’exclut aucunement le respect et l’intégration d’autres règles propres au droit fédéral, la prise en compte d’autres sources, notamment en matière de droit international, ni le respect d’autres cultures juridiques, plus particulièrement les cultures autochtones” (i) what other rules has the government found to apply to it, (ii) what sources of law has the government recognized other than civil, common, aboriginal, and international law, (iii) what other cultures has the government sought to respect in this regard and how; (v) with which international law sources has the government sought to harmonize its laws and how so; (w) with what aboriginal law sources has the government sought to harmonize its laws and how so; (x) how may the Bijural Terminology Records Research Index be accessed and how often is it updated; (y) of what cases is the government currently aware where the matter at issue is one of bijuralism or harmonization; (z) what statutes would benefit from modification to respect best practices with respect to bijuralism and harmonization; (aa) what statutes have been identified as having bijuralism issues and how have they been so identified; (bb) what statutes require amendment to conform with the solutions proposed in the Bijural Terminology Records Research Index; (cc) is a new Federal Law – Civil Law Harmonization Act being prepared; (dd) what efforts have been made to identify whether a new Federal Law – Civil Law Harmonization Act is necessary and what determines its necessity; (ee) how is proposed legislation vetted or otherwise checked to ensure conformity with bijuralism and harmonization best practices; (ff) in what ways are existing statutes checked to ensure conformity with bijuralism and harmonization best practices; (gg) what prompts the introduction of legislation to address an issue of bijuralism / harmonization; (hh) in what Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT)) meetings have bijuralism issues been raised and in what context; (ii) in what FPT meetings have harmonization issues been raised and in what context; (jj) in what ways is Quebec’s new Code of Civil Procedure being analysed by the government, (i) by whom, (ii) with what mandate, (iii) with what purpose; (kk) does Quebec’s new Code of Civil Procedure – fully coming into force in 2015 – suggest any need for legislative response on the part of the Government of Canada to ensure federal law harmonization with civil law practice in Quebec; (ll) does the review of government legislation under the Department of Justice Act include in any way the review of legislation for any issues of bijuralism and, if so, how and to what extent; (mm) does the review of government legislation under the Department of Justice Act include in any way the review of legislation for any issues of harmonization and, if so how, how and to what extent; (nn) to what extent and in what ways are regulations reviewed to ensure conformity with bijuralism best practices; (oo) to what extent has cabinet been informed of the importance of bijuralism, by what means and on what dates; (pp) is bijuralism assessed in any way when filling vacancies at the Department of Justice and, if so, how; (qq) what grants and other programs exist to promote bijuralism (i) within the Department of Justice, (ii) across government, (iii) within the legal community, (iv) at law schools, (v) to the broader public; (rr) what involvements and engagements are being undertaken with respect to bijuralism internationally; (ss) in what ways and forums has Canada shared its bijuralism expertise and experience with other countries; (tt) does a review of legislation for harmonization issues include any consideration of provincial implementation cost; (uu) in what ways are coming into force provisions used, if any, to assist with harmonization; (vv) is there any federal legislation that has not been reviewed for bijuralism or harmonization issues in any way and, if so, how and why is this so; (ww) are private member’s bills reviewed for issues of bijuralism and harmonization and, if so (i) by whom, (ii) in what context, (iii) with what mandate, (iv) to what extent, (v) reporting to whom, (vi) with what work product, (vii) at what point or points in the Parliamentary process, (vii) with what consequence if an issue is spotted; (xx) with respect to the gap between publications dated 2006 and prior and the most recent publication in 2013 on the “Bijuralism and Harmonization” webpage at http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/harmonization/index.html, (i) why does this gap exist, (ii) were any reports or studies conducted during this time, (iii) if so, were they published and if not, why not, (iv) what materials are being presently prepared or research that may be published on this page; (yy) in what ways does the Department seek to promote contact between the civil law and common law traditions; and (zz) with respect to Canada’s four legal audiences (anglophone common law lawyers, francophone common law lawyers, anglophone Quebec civilian lawyers and francophone Quebec civilian lawyers), in what ways does the department ensure it has the means and resources adequate to address the unique concerns of each with respect to bijuralism and harmonization, and what issues and challenges have been identified?