Questions and responses 41st Parliament, 1st session June 2, 2011, to September 13, 2013

With regard to Confidential Services for Victims of Abuse (CSVA) program: (a) what steps are being taken to ensure stronger federal-provincial coordination in the delivery of CSVA; (b) once a victim enters the CSVA, what steps are being taken to make sure that access to a secure identity is provided as quickly as possible; (c) how does the CSVA ensure that victims receive adequate support and services during the period in which their new identities are being processed; (d) how does the CSVA adequately provide access to secure housing and financial support for victims entering the program; (e) how does the government intend to redress the fact that victims in the CSVA program in the past were not provided with adequate housing and financial security; (f) what steps are being taken to ensure that the victims entering into the CSVA program now will not face similar difficulties with accessing housing and financial security; (g) what services are provided to victims in the CSVA program after the secure identity is obtained; (h) how are these services coordinated among the provinces and between each province and the federal government; (i) in the event that the secure identity is compromised or revealed, what recourse within the program is available to victims; (j) how can victims whose secure identity is compromised access further services and support; (k) if a victim has complaints about CSVA services received, what recourse is available to them; (l) if a victim has complaints about the timeliness of services provided, what recourse is available to them; (m) what is the timeline for distribution of services in the CSVA program; (n) how is the timeline for distribution of services from the CVSA coordinated with the provinces; and (o) what is the government’s policy concerning the relationship between the CSVA and its international obligation to protect women and girls from violence?

With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: (a) has the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food been asked any questions by the Saskatchewan provincial Minister of Agriculture about the proposed divestiture of the Agroforestry Development Centre at Indian Head, Saskatchewan; (b) when were those questions received; (c) what were those questions; (d) has the Minister replied; and (e) when and what were his answers?

With regard to aboriginal justice, broken down by year from 2006 to the present: (a) how much money was dedicated to the Aboriginal Justice Strategy (AJS); (b) how much money was devoted to other aboriginal justice programs; (c) with respect to (a) and (b), by program, how much money was spent; (d) by whom were monies in (a) and (b) spent, on what dates, and for what purpose; (e) broken down by province and territory, on what dates were provinces and territories consulted with respect to funding of the AJS for the upcoming year; (f) broken down by province and territory, on what dates were the provinces and territories consulted with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (g) broken down by province and territory, how much did each request of the government with respect to the AJS; (h) broken down by province and territory, with which First Nations did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (i) with which First Nations groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (j) with which other stakeholders did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (k) which stakeholders were informed of budget decisions relative to the AJS, by what means and on what dates; (l) broken down by province and territory, how much did each request of the government with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (m) broken down by province and territory, with which First Nations did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (n) with which First Nations groups and NGOs did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (o) with which other stakeholders did the government consult with respect to the other aboriginal justice programs; (p) how does the government determine stakeholders regarding aboriginal justice concerns; (q) by whom, with what criteria, and when was AJS the budget determined; (r) in what ways, by whom, and when is AJS evaluated; (s) in which Federal-Provincial-Territorial Minister’s meetings was the AJS raised; (t) what commitments were made by the government; (u) were those commitments met; (v) which stakeholders were informed of budget decisions relative to other aboriginal justice programs, by what means and on what dates; (w) by whom, with what criteria, and when were these budgets determined; (x) in what ways, by whom, and when are these programs evaluated; (y) in which Federal-Provincial-Territorial Minister’s meetings were these programs raised; (z) what commitments were made by the government; (aa) were those commitments met; (bb) in what ways do these programs work to implement the Gladue principles; (cc) in what other ways are the Gladue principles being implemented; (dd) by what means, how often, with which criteria, and by whom does the government evaluate its implementation of the Gladue principles; (ee) what programs and strategies are in place to ensure both respect for and compliance with the Gladue principles; (ff) how many Gladue courts operate in Canada; (gg) in what ways is the government engaged with Gladue courts; (hh) in what ways does the government support Gladue courts; (ii) in what ways does the government ensure training for judges on the Gladue principles; (jj) in what ways does the government ensure training for prosecutors on the Gladue principles; (kk) in what ways does the government ensure the consideration of Gladue principles in its filings and submissions before the courts; (ll) in what ways is the government addressing the over-representation of aboriginals in prisons; (mm) what are the principles of the government’s aboriginal justice approach; (nn) how does the government evaluate whether its approach to aboriginal justice is working; (oo) by what specific standards, by whom and how often do such evaluations occur; (pp) in what ways does the government undertake predictions or forecasts with respect to the incarceration of aboriginal offenders; (qq) how are these forecasts taken into account in criminal justice policy development; (rr) in what ways are proposed justice laws evaluated for their impact on aboriginal persons; (ss) in what ways is the government incorporating aboriginal justice into its overall justice strategy; (tt) what policies exist to ensure aboriginal justice concerns are taken into account at every stage of policy and legislative development; (uu) who is responsible for keeping statistics on aboriginal justice; (vv) with respect to (uu), what statistics are available and from which departments; and (ww) with respect to (vv) what are the figures for each of the last three years?

With regard to the Memorandum of Understanding on the development of the Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor: (a) have formal agreements been reached with Quebec and Ontario regarding the broader strategy that was to have been adopted; (b) if so, what are the details of the agreement and the strategy; (c) if not, when will this strategy be announced; and (d) what are the reasons for the delays?

With regard to the Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway initiative: (a) was there a formal agreement with Quebec with regard to this initiative; (b) if there was an agreement, when will details of the programming be made public; (c) are the budget envelopes set aside for this initiative still available; (d) does the government plan to allocate a specific budget envelope to projects proposed by the Quebec government; (e) what projects proposed by the Quebec government have received government approval; (f) what impact will the recently announced projects to improve the movement of goods through the Windsor-Detroit corridor have on the overall budget envelope; and (g) will funds from the Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway initiative be used to build the new Champlain Bridge?

With regard to the Gateways and Border Crossings Fund under the “Building Canada” infrastructure plan: (a) are the anticipated funding envelopes for this program still available; (b) how much money has been invested and in which projects; (c) how much is still available for the Quebec-Ontario continental gateway; (d) will the Government of Quebec receive a dedicated envelope for its own projects; (e) did the Government of Quebec’s intended projects under this program receive government support; (f) how much money was invested in Ontario and how much in Quebec for the Quebec-Ontario continental gateway; (g) are the various projects announced to improve the flow of goods between Windsor and Detroit financed using funds for the Quebec-Ontario continental gateway; (h) will monies for the Gateways and Border Crossings Fund be used to establish a logistical platform on the Detroit side; and (i) what is the total value of goods manufactured in Quebec that pass through Windsor?

With regard to the Minister of Health’s signed response to Order Paper Question Q-1254: (a) how does the Minister and her government define “transparency”; (b) what does the Minister mean by "this Government has been as transparent as possible with parliamentarians and the public on this issue"; (c ) how does taking 225 days to answer Q-1254 meet the Minister’s definition of transparency, (i) how does taking 225 days meet the statement that Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and that they “must answer all questions pertaining to your (sic) areas of responsibility”, as cited in “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State”, (ii) what criteria were used to ensure transparency; (d) how does answering only sub-questions (a), (q) and (z) of Q-1254 meet (i) the Minister’s definition of transparency used in (a), (ii) the guidelines in “Accountable Government”, (iii) what criteria were used to ensure transparency; (e) how does partially answering sub-questions (b), (c), and (n) meet (i) the Minister’s definition of transparency used in (a), (ii) the guidelines in “Accountable Government”, (iii) what criteria were used to ensure transparency; (f) how does refusing to answer sub-questions (d) to (h), (j), (l) to (m), (r) to (s), (u) to (y), and (aa) meet (i) the Minister’s definition of transparency used in (a), (ii) the guidelines in “Accountable Government”, (iii) what criteria were used to ensure transparency; (g) why does the government not track by hours, cost, number of drafts, and persons who work on speeches, when it tracks projected costs to answer opposition MPs’ Order Paper questions; (h) who does the government consider to be “key partners” regarding chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) procedure; (i) what are the main CCSVI stakeholders across the country, (i) which, if any, does the government consider a “key partner”, (ii) with which, if any, does the “government communicate on a regular basis”; (j) why does the Canadian Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Monitoring System, which “was ready to receive data as of September 2012”, not contain any submitted data, (i) what are the barriers to having submitted data, (ii) what, if anything, can be done to make the system operational and functional, including, but not limited to, increased political will, human resources, financial resources, or improved cooperation with stakeholders; (k) if new Statistics Canada data was published in September 2012 showing that the number of people living with multiple sclerosis in Canada is 93,500, (i) why did John Wright, President and CEO of the Canadian Institute for Health Information use the numbers 55,000 to 75,000 at the October 4th, 2012 hearings on Bill S-204; (l) regarding the September 6, 2011, consensus workshop to determine the best procedures to standardize imaging of veins in the neck and brain, (i) who were the invited experts, (ii) how many imaging procedures for CCSVI had each expert undertaken, (iii) by whom were each of the experts trained, (iv) how many of the experts were funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR); (m) what was the funding by each of CIHR, the MS Society of Canada, and the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec for the $6 million CCSVI clinical trial; (n) which of (a), (b), or (c) is the government’s position regarding follow-up care (a) "MS patients who have received a venous procedure abroad should be reassured that they will be continued to be cared for by their physicians and/or regular MS specialists as any other patients?" (ATIP), (b) follow-up care as an issue that is primarily the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments (ATIP) or (c) “the federal government has provided regular MS research updates to provincial and territorial jurisdictions, which have the responsibility to ensure that Canadians receive appropriate health treatments and follow-up care” (answer to Order Paper question Q-1254); (o) what recourse and resources do Canadians who have been treated for CCSVI have should they be denied follow-up care, as Roxanne Garland was; (p) has the government been informed of a preliminary study for CCSVI undertaken in British Columbia, and if so, what were the preliminary results; and (q) has the $6 million CCSVI clinical trial begun and if not, why not, and if so, (i) on what date did patient accrual begin in each of the provinces, (ii) how many patients have been recruited for the trial by province, (iii) how many CCSVI procedures have been undertaken by province?

With regard to access to information requests ATI 2012-005 and 2012-006 submitted by Ms. Kirsty Duncan, M.P., for which a response was sent on February 22, 2013: (a) on what date were the two submissions made and what was the timeframe for completing the response; (b) why were the two requests returned together, some parts featuring page numbers and others not; (c) how many updates have been received from the Canadian Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI) Systematic Review Group to date, (i) how many studies in total have met the criteria for inclusion in the review, (ii) why does the group not identify, for each complication, the number of cases per number of people treated, (iii) why does the government not provide, for each serious complication listed, the number of cases per population treated; (d) on what date was the request for proposals for the CCSVI trials first drafted, (i) how may drafts were undertaken and on what dates, (ii) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (iii) on what date did the provincial and territorial Ministers of Health review the draft, (iv) what was the feedback provided; (e) why, on November 22, 2012, was the amount available for the CCSVI trials in the range of $3-5 million, (i) what is the significance of the expression "should we just fudge a number"; (f) how was the decision made to earmark $3 million for the CCSVI trials and on what date was the decision made; (g) on what date and at what time was the Request for Applications (RFA) announcement for clinical trials published on the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR)'s website, (i) on what date and at what time was Bill C-280, An Act to establish a National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI), scheduled to be debated; (h) why was there a change by the President's office at CIHR that the commitment from the CIHR be $2 million with the balance to come from partners, i.e. the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC) and ''relevant provinces and territories'', and what were the relevant provinces and territories referred to; (i) how many versions of the Multiple Sclerosis (MS) research update deck were produced and on what dates, (i) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (ii) when was the final draft presented, and for what purpose; (j) how many government MPs has the Health Minister met with on the issue of CCSVI/MS since May 2010, and how many government MPs have the Minister's officials met with on the issue of CCSVI/MS since May 2010; (k) how many draft speeches were prepared for government MPs for Motion M-274, (i) how many versions of each speech were produced and on what dates, (ii) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (iii) how many government MPs read these prepared speeches; (l) regarding the briefing note for Dr. Alain Beaudet`s meeting with Dr. Jeffrey Turnbull, President of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) on December 21, 2010, why did a recommendation in the briefing note state "The possibility of the CMA producing a position statement regarding patient access to physicians for patients who have received the Zamboni procedure", and "The fact that CIHR would be willing to provide the CMA with any necessary support in order to produce this statement", when the Scientific Expert Working Group (SEWG) stated that, "media reports that have stated that Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients who experience complications after Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI) treatment are not being seen by Canadian doctors are not justified"; (m) regarding the briefing note for Dr. Alain Beaudet's meeting with Paul Emile Cloutier, CEO of the CMA on January 31, 2012, which shows CMA President Haggie testified before a Senate committee on Dec 2, 2011, and a House committee on October 17, 2011, (i) did President Haggie bring up at either committee meeting CMA's lack of support for either bills C-280 or S-204, (ii) why was President Haggie unaware of the lack of follow-up care for MS patients treated for CCSVI when President Turnbull was made aware, (iii) why was there a hiatus in correspondence with the CMA, (iv) for how long was the hiatus, (v) when did the hiatus end; (n) regarding the MS-Societies' seven funded studies regarding CCSVI, why was there, at the 18-month mark, an inquiry into the training of the teams, (i) which of the teams were trained by Dr. Zamboni and which individual members of each team were trained by Dr. Zamboni, (ii) which of the teams were trained by Dr. Zivadinov and which individual members of each team were trained by Dr. Zivadinov, (iii) which teams were trained by neither or by another team; (o) how many people worked on drafts of prepared speeches for bill C-280, An Act to establish a National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI), for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers and how many government MPs read these prepared speeches; (p) how many people worked on drafts of prepared speeches for bill S-204, An Act to establish a National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI), for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (i) how many government Senators read these prepared speeches; (q) on what dates was the Canadian MS Monitoring System to be ready to receive data and when did the system start collecting data; (r) is the government's position regarding MS patients’ input into the Scientific Expert Working Group (SEWG) in accordance with the statement "CIHR's Scientific Expert Working Group includes researchers with expertise in different disciplines such as neurology, vascular surgery and vascular imaging who are treating MS patients and who will be bringing their patients' concerns to the table" (ATIP); (s) is it still the government's position that "Benoit's motion speaks far more to PHAC's monitoring system than anything we are doing on the trials front" (ATIP); (t) how many draft MS slide decks were prepared for Senatorial Caucus, (i) how many versions of each deck were produced and on what dates, (ii) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (iii) who presented the deck to the Senatorial Caucus; (u) is the government's position as per the information sheet provided when Dr. Alain Beaudet wrote to the Colleges of Physicians on February 29, 2012 which says, "MS patients who have received a venous procedure abroad should be reassured that they will be continued to be cared for by their physicians and/or regular MS specialists as any other patients?” or is it that follow-up care is primarily the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments to ensure that no Canadian is denied post-treatment and follow-up care (ATIP) and what role does the federal government have if patients are being denied follow-up care by a province or territory; (v) why did the government ask the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC) on February 7, 2012 about approved venous angioplasty; (w) is it still the government's position that the MS documentary that aired on the Nature of Things on February 9, 2012, was "balanced and fair"; (x) why does a February 16, 2012 e-mail list MS patients who are also CCSVI advocates; (y) is the government's position regarding imaging for CCSVI in accordance with the International Society for NeuroVascular Disease (ISNVD) venography statement and consensus document and, if not, why not; and (z) does the government know how many Canadians are actually impacted by MS, (i) if so, what is the number, (ii) if not, why not; and (aa) when Dr. Alain Beaudet wrote to the Colleges of Physicians on February 29, 2012, (i) why was the list of 11 recent peer-reviewed publications provided not a comprehensive list, (i) why did the list not specify what were positive and negative studies, and what imaging techniques were used, (ii) for MS patients who are denied follow-up care, what recourse and resources do they have, (iii) what is the position of the Scientific Expert Working Group concerning MS patients who have been denied follow-up care, such as Roxanne Garland?