Questions and responses 41st Parliament, 2nd session October 16, 2013, to August 2, 2015

With regard to government loans and grants to businesses since 2006: (a) what are the names of the companies that received grants and loans, including (i) the program that the loan was granted under, (ii) the amount of the loan, (iii) the amount that has currently paid back, (iv) the amount that is currently outstanding, (v) the amount that was originally announced, (vi) the reason for any write down or write off, (vii) the number of jobs that were supposed to be created by the loan, (viii) the number of jobs that were actually created after the loan was issued, (ix) the number of jobs that were committed to be maintained because of the loan, (x) the number of jobs that were actually maintained; and (b) for companies that failed to meet their job numbers, what action has the government taken to address the missed target?

With respect the procurement of goods and services for use by the Department of National Defence: for each awarded contract over $25,000 for which a supplier cancelled or failed to meet a delivery date after March 31, 2011, what is (a) the name of the contract; (b) the type of contract or method of supply; (c) the reference number, solicitation number, and tracking number; (d) the names of all parties to the contract; (e) the date the contract was awarded; (f) the description of the good or service to be supplied; (g) the value of the contract; (h) the delivery date specified in the contract; (i) the value of monies paid by the government to the supplier in advance of delivery, if applicable; (j) the date that the good or service was delivered, for goods and services that were delivered late; (k) the planned future delivery date, for deliveries that remain outstanding; (l) the date the contract was cancelled, for cancelled contracts; (m) the reason for the cancellation of the contract, for cancelled contracts; (n) the value of advance payments returned to the government, for undelivered goods and services; (o) the values and conditions of the contractual penalties for late and failed delivery; and (p) the value of monies recuperated by the government pursuant to penalties for late or failed delivery?

With regard to government contracts: what are the particulars of all contracts entered into by a department, agency, or crown corporation, since January 1, 2011, which have been cancelled, abrogated, or otherwise terminated by the department, agency, or crown corporation for failure of a contracting party to perform its obligations under the contract, specifying (i) the date on which the contract was entered into, (ii) the parties to the contract, (iii) the initial value of the contract, (iv) the nature or description of the purpose of the contract, (v) the date on which the contract was cancelled, abrogated, or otherwise terminated, (vi) whether the contract was the subject of legal action, and, if affirmative, giving the date on which legal action was commenced, the disposition of the action, and the court docket numbers related to the action?

With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal year 2014-2015: (a) what was the volume of EI applications in total and broken down by (i) region or province where the claim originated, (ii) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (iii) month; (b) what was the average processing time for EI applications in total and broken down by (i) region or province where the claim originated, (ii) month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, in total and broken down by (i) region or province where the claim originated, (ii) month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region or province; (e) how many calls were made to EI call centres that received a “high volume” message, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region or province; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by month; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region or province; (h) what were the service standards for call backs from EI processing staff, broken down by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI processing staff for call backs, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region or province; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by EI processing staff, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region or province; (k) what was the number and percentage of term employees, and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, working at EI call centres and processing centres; (l) what was the rate of sick leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees; (m) what was the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long term disability; (n) what was the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees; (o) how many of the additional 300 staff in EI processing have been hired, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) location; (p) how many of the 100 additional staff in EI call centres have been hired, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) location; (q) who authored the report on EI processing; (r) what is the Table of Contents for the report; (s) will the government make the report public; (t) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region or province where the complaint originated; (u) how long, on average, did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by month; and (v) what were the major themes of the complaints received?

With regard to the government’s telecom services, including cell phones, land lines, voice-over-internet, and other, for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to the present: (a) how much has the government paid for telecom services, broken down by (i) the names of the telecom providers, (ii) the amount paid to each provider, (iii) the number of land lines provided by each provider, (iv) the number of cell phone lines provided by each provider, (v) the number of voice-over-internet lines provided by each provider; (b) how much has the government paid in late fees and to which providers; (c) has the government conducted any internal surveys of telecom services, and, if so, what were the results, broken down by (i) the tracking number and name of the survey, (ii) the questions asked, (iii) the answers provided, (iv) the tracking number and title of any briefing notes created from the survey; (d) how many calls has the telecom help desk received; (e) for each answer provided in (d), (i) what were the most common issues, (ii) where were the calls made, broken down by department; (f) how much has the government collected in fees for 1-900 or 1-800 numbers, broken down by (i) the number, (ii) the amount per number; (g) how much has the government paid for downloading applications on phones, broken down by (i) application, (ii) individual cost; (h) how much has the government paid for texting services, broken down by (i) the name of the service, (ii) the cost; (i) has the government completed any studies on the use of cell or voice-over-internet technology for government employees; and (j) if the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, (i) what are the names and tracking numbers of these studies, (ii) what were the conclusions of these studies, (iii) what are the briefing notes and tracking numbers associated with these studies?

With respect to the report entitled "The Unified Family Court Summative Evaluation", released in March 2009 by the Department of Justice: (a) what progress has been made on each of the three recommendations outlined in section 8; (b) since fiscal year 2002-2003, what initiatives, as indicated on page 8 of the English version of the report, has the Department of Justice launched to enhance the level of services that provincial and territorial governments provide in the area of family law; and (c) how much federal funding was spent in each fiscal year since 2002-2003 on every initiative identified in (b)?

With regard to the Extractives Cooperation for Enhanced Economic Development (EXCEED) Program under the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD): (a) which officials from DFATD and other departments, including the Privy Council Office, will be responsible for administering this program; (b) what was the entire process, including consultation, leading to the establishment of the program and what were the related dates; (c) did an external audit and evaluation committee assess the creation of this program; (d) what are (i) the reasons for establishing this program, (ii) the objectives, (iii) the mandate, (iv) the operations of this program; (e) how many employees will be assigned to manage and administer this program and what are their responsibilities; (f) are projects required to focus exclusively on African countries; (g) why was Latin America not included in this program; (h) what is the process for submitting project proposals; (i) will there be a tendering process; (j) when will the next request for proposals be issued; (k) how many project proposals has the program received since it was established; (l) what are the selection criteria and what is the complete project selection process; (m) who is eligible for funding under the program; (n) can private-sector companies receive funding under this program; (o) will a webpage be created on the DFATD website; (p) how much does this initiative cost; (q) what type of funding does this program award; (r) can the public or businesses contribute to the program now or in the future; (s) why was an initial budget of $25 million allocated; (t) will the budget be increased or decreased; (u) why was this program not announced in Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2014; (v) what indicators and measurement tools will be used to assess the effectiveness of projects funded by the program; (w) what specific measures have been taken and what internal audit and evaluation strategies have been developed for this program to ensure compliance with the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, particularly in relation to (i) poverty reduction, (ii) consistency with Canadian values, (iii) Canada’s foreign policy, (iv) the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, (v) sustainable development, (vi) promoting democracy, (vii) promoting international human rights standards; (x) what is the relationship between the Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development and the African Minerals Development Centre, and will they receive program funding; (y) how will the program fit within the departmental structure of DFATD, and what will be the reporting relationship among program officials; (z) with regard to the project “African Legal Support Facility”, which is receiving $10 million over 5 years under the EXCEED Program, (i) what was the date of the call for proposals for this project, (ii) was this a public call for proposals, (iii) on the basis of what criteria was this project selected, (iv) who are the project partners, (v) what is the performance measurement strategy for this project, including objectives, anticipated results, performance indicators, and internal audit and evaluation strategies, (vi) do the internal audit and evaluation strategies include an analysis of the reports prepared for the African Development Bank, (vii) what is the project’s mandate; and (aa) with regard to the project referred to in (z), what specific measures have been taken and what internal audit and evaluation strategies have been developed for this project to ensure compliance with the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, particularly in relation to (i) poverty reduction, (ii) consistency with Canadian values, (iii) Canada’s foreign policy, (iv) the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, (v) sustainable development, (vi) promoting democracy, (vii) promoting international human rights standards?

With regard to Family Class applications for dependants of protected persons in Canada being processed at the High Commission of Canada (HCC) in New Delhi: (a) what level of priority is assigned to this type of application; (b) what is the estimated processing time for this type of application; (c) is the HCC in New Delhi currently meeting its estimated processing time for this type of application and, if not, why not; and (d) what measures does Citizenship and Immigration Canada have for assisting refugee dependants residing in Nepal who have been found to be members of the Family Class but are unable to access travel documents?

With regard to Canadian support being provided to Ukraine, the Declaration of Intent between the Department of National Defence of Canada and the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine of December 8, 2014, in Kiev, the subsequent deployment of Canadian military personnel to Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, and Canada’s commitment to helping Ukraine in the strengthening of its security forces and its social and democratic institutions: (a) what activities are being carried out with the Ukrainian forces, the Ukrainian government, or civilians, with respect to (i) strengthening the capacity of Ukrainian security forces, (ii) promoting institutions that serve the wellbeing of Ukrainian society, (iii) training Ukrainian personnel in areas of policing, medical and personal protective measures, (iv) enhancing Ukrainian democratic institutions; (b) how many Canadian personnel are involved, in total and in each of the categories of activities mentioned in (a), further broken down by whether they are civilian or military; (c) are the deployed personnel members of the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces, or other institutions, agencies or organizations and, if so, what are these other institutions, agencies or organizations; (d) what are the measures of success used in evaluating progress on the objectives mentioned in (a); (e) what progress has been made on the objectives mentioned in (a) since the signing of the Declaration of Intent referenced above; (f) who is directly responsible for the leadership and oversight of the deployment to Ukraine; and (g) what form does the government expect future Canadian cooperation with and support to Ukraine to take?

With regard to the government’s Email Transformation Initiative: (a) how many and which departments have migrated to the one email platform, including the date of the migration; (b) what is the date for the expected migration of the remaining departments, agencies or boards; (c) what was the original date planned for the migration of each government body; (d) how much does the government expect to forgo in savings because of any delays; (e) what are the projected savings arising from the move to one email platform, broken down by (i) department, (ii) total government savings; (f) for departments that have already migrated to the one email platform, (i) what are the recorded Treasury Board transfers for the department to Shared Services Canada, (ii) what are the recorded Treasury Board savings for each department, (iii) what is the amount of reduction to the departments’ estimates for 2015-2016; (g) what penalties were charged to Bell Canada and CGI Information Systems for not being able to meet their targets; (h) what is the cost of the contract to both Bell Canada and CGI Information Systems, including (i) how much has currently been paid, (ii) how much is expected to be paid at the completion of the project, (iii) the maximum amount that is allowed under the contract, (iv) the original maximum amount allowed at the signing of the contract; (i) how much has been budgeted for the migration to one email platform; (j) how much was budgeted at the start of the program; (k) what will be the ongoing operational cost to operate the one email platform; (l) what is the static operational cost of operating all email platforms before the migration; (m) for departments that have migrated to the one email platform, what are the issues logged by the IT help desk, including (i) the type of issue, (ii) the length of time on the IT help line, (iii) the cost of any outside contractors hired to address excess volumes; and (n) what are all the contracts associated with the migration and the implementation of the one email platform, including (i) the name of the company, (ii) the amount of the contract, (iii) the amount that has already been paid under the contract, (iv) if the contract is tendered, (v) the length of the contract?

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 Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many ISS members assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability benefit cases have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, (ii) a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, (iii) a provincial or territorial licence in nursing, (iv) a provincial or territorial licence in occupational therapy, (v) a provincial or territorial licence in pharmacy, (vi) a provincial or territorial licence in physiotherapy, (vii) a provincial or territorial licence in psychology, (viii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (k) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) but currently assigned to the ISS have been assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability benefit cases, and of those members, how many have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, (ii) a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, (iii) a provincial or territorial licence in nursing, (iv) a provincial or territorial licence in occupational therapy, (v) a provincial or territorial licence in pharmacy, (vi) a provincial or territorial licence in physiotherapy, (vii) a provincial or territorial licence in psychology, (viii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (l) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (m) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (o) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (p) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by (i) year, (ii) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (t) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (u) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (v) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS, in total and broken down by year; (w) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed, in total and broken down by year; (x) how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (y) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (dd) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (ee) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD, in total and broken down by year; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed, in total and broken down by year; (gg) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (hh) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed, in total and broken down by year; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) appeals allowed, (iii) appeals dismissed; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (nn) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (oo) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness, broken down by (i) year, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (rr) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship, broken down by (i) year, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted; (ss) how many AD members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (tt) how many ISS members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (uu) how many EIS members are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (vv) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ww) when is the consultants’ report on productivity due to be completed and will the report be made public; (xx) when did the Tribunal begin assigning cases to members in 2013, broken down by (i) ISS, (ii) EIS, (iii) AD; (yy) at what point in 2013 did all existing members have case files assigned to them, broken down by (i) ISS, (ii) EIS, (iii) AD; (zz) what was the rationale for not maintaining the old Boards of Referees, EI Umpires, Review Tribunals, and Pensions Appeal Board until their existing caseloads were completely finished; and (aaa) what was the rationale for imposing a cap on the number of Tribunal members at the time of the Tribunal’s creation?

With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada and the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits (CPPD), (iii) Old Age Security (OAS); (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (f) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in person in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) are currently assigned to the ISS; (k) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (l) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (m) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (o) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (p) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (t) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (u) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS in 2015, in total and broken down by month; (v) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed in 2015; (w) how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed in 2015; (x) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed in 2015; (y) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (dd) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD in 2015; (ee) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2015; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2015; (gg) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2015; (hh) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (nn) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (oo) how many legacy EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness in 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship in 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted; (rr) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ss) how many casefiles have been reviewed by the special unit created within the department to review backlogged social security appeals; (tt) how many settlements have been offered; (uu) how many settlements have been accepted; (vv) for 2014 and 2015, what is the average amount of time for the Department to reach a decision on an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month; and (ww) for 2014 and 2015, what is the average amount of time for the Department to reach a decision on a reconsideration of an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month?

With respect to the Ebola vaccine developed at the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML): (a) on what date did research for the vaccine begin; (b) what are the names of the scientists involved in the research, and what are their positions; (c) why was the vaccine research initially undertaken; (d) was the research undertaken at any time in relation to anti-bioterrorism, and, if so, during what periods and with what specific mandate; (e) who provided funding for the research and development of the vaccine; (f) was the Government of Canada the only contributor to the research and development fund; (g) how much funding did the government provide, broken down by (i) percentage, (ii) department, (iii) date, (iv) dollar amount of contribution; (h) on what date was a robust immune response demonstrated to the vaccine; (i) on what date were research findings published and in what journal, and, if none were published, why not; (j) on what date was the vaccine patented and when was the initial patent application brought; (k) in which countries is the vaccine patented; (l) during what specific time period was the vaccine produced, (i) how many vials were produced, (ii) who was informed of this production, (iii) how were they informed; (m) was there a competitive process to sell the licensing rights or other entitlements relating to the vaccine; (n) if the process in (m) was created, (i) who developed the criteria for the licensing rights or other entitlements, broken down by position and department, (ii) what were the criteria to obtain the licensing rights or other entitlements, (iii) on what date was the competitive process launched, (iv) how many companies bid for the rights, (v) which companies bid for the rights and on what dates, (vi) how did NewLink Genetics (including Bioprotection Systems Corporation) meet the criteria for the licensing rights or other entitlements; (o) on what date was NewLink Genetics awarded the rights or entitlements; (p) what specific experience did NewLink Genetics have with vaccines, specifically when it comes to manufacturing capacity; (q) what NewLink Genetics products had reached the point of commercial production at the time of its bidding and purchase of the rights; (r) on what date did NewLink Genetics purchase the rights or entitlements from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and for what cost; (s) as part of the licensing agreement, was NewLink Genetics expected to meet any milestones by any particular dates, (i) if so, when, (ii) if not, why not; (t) as part of the licensing agreement, what percentage royalties would NewLink Genetics pay Canada on any sales of the vaccine; (u) to date, how much income has the government obtained from licensing the vaccine, broken down by (i) up-front payments, (ii) milestone payments, (iii) any other payments; (v) did any of the NML or PHAC scientists/staff have any associations or links or monetary or proprietary interests or any other association with NewLink Genetics, and, if so, what are they; (w) did Canadian officials and the licensee meet annually in face-to-face meetings as required by Article 7.9 of the license agreement, and, if so, for all meetings, what is (i) the date, (ii) location, (iii) the names of all persons in attendance; (x) on what date did NewLink Genetics begin clinical trials of the vaccine; (y) how long was the delay between the onset of the commercial relationship with NewLink Genetics and start of clinical trials, broken down by (i) days, (ii) months, (iii) years; (z) what reason was given for the delay in (y); (aa) did the government question the progress of the clinical trials, if so, on what specific dates, and, if not, why not; (bb) in Canada's licensing agreement with NewLink Genetics, did Canada have the right to let other manufacturers make the vaccine for use in other countries "for compassionate care purposes" if NewLink had not received regulatory approval for the vaccine in the target country; (cc) did anyone in Canada urge the government to terminate its agreement with NewLink Genetics, and, if so, (i) who did so, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (dd) did anyone outside Canada request that Canada cancel NewLink's rights under the license, and, if so, (i) who did so, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (ee) did the government terminate the agreement, (i) if so, why, (ii) if not, why not; (ff) if the government terminated the agreement with NewLink Genetics, would Merck have paid the government the $30 million up front and $20 million once larger formal trials begun that went to NewLink Genetics, and would the government have been eligible to receive royalties on sales in certain markets; (gg) did the government approve of NewLink Genetics sub-licensing the vaccine to Merck; (hh) on what date did the government pay for IDT Biologika, to manufacture approximately 1 500 vials of the vaccine suitable for human trials, (i) how much was paid, (ii) was the Department of Defence involved, and, if so, why, (iii) did the Department of Defence contribute any funds; (ii) on what date did the Ebola outbreak begin in West Africa; (jj) on what date did the government reveal it had in storage an experimental vaccine that might be of use in combating the epidemic; (kk) on what date did the government offer vaccine to the World Health Organization (WHO); (ll) how many vials were sent to the WHO by the government, (i) on what date did the vials arrive, (ii) were there any delays; (mm) what are the results of the eight, phase l clinical trials in terms of (i) safety, (ii) immunogenic response, (iii) dose strength for phase 2/3 clinical trials; (nn) on what date did phase 2/3 clinical trials begin in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone; and (oo) what was the government’s involvement overall, broken down by (i) expertise, (ii) funding, (iii) personnel, (iv) other?

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 the operation of the federal Crown Corporation Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI) and the policy and operational oversight provided for MAI by Transport Canada: (a) what is Transport Canada’s rationale for its decision to acquire or charter new vessels of approximately 200 metres in length to renew the MAI fleet, in light of the fact that the MAI Board of Directors had previously approved their consultant’s recommendation that vessels of 175 metres in length would be best suited to the service; (b) what were the perceived advantages of the longer vessels that outweighed the increased likelihood that their operations would be inhibited by poor weather; (c) what was Transport Canada’s rationale for establishing a four-vessel fleet for MAI, given the 2005 Report from the Minister of Transport’s Advisory Committee on Marine Atlantic Inc. that had recommended a three-vessel fleet; (d) does MAI track delays that customers experience in order to make new bookings during peak times, (i) if so, what are the details of such delays for June to September 2013, and June to September 2014, (ii) if not, why not; (e) does MAI collect data on the delay between a customer’s preferred travel date and the date for which they are actually able to make a reservation for travel, (i) if so, what are the details of such delays for June to September 2013, and June to September 2014, (ii) if not, why not; (f) during times of traffic backlog (e.g., because of excess demand, mechanical failure or poor weather) is it MAI’s policy not to take new reservations, or allow vehicles to buy passage and enter the parking lots, until the backlog is cleared and, if so, why; (g) in what ways do the new collective agreements signed between 2011 and 2013 for MAI employees allow additional operational flexibility and potential for labour cost savings to MAI, compared to the previous collective agreements; (h) what measureable benefits has MAI received as a result of the new collective agreements; (i) is the loan for the MV Leif Ericson still being paid out of the operating budget and, if so, why; (j) other than the Canadian Forces Appreciation Fare, has MAI ever introduced any other fare options to give users more choice and increase fare revenue and, if not, why not; (k) is it MAI’s current policy to give tractor-trailers loading priority over drop trailers and, if not, why not; (l) did MAI apply to Transport Canada Marine Safety in order to be able to allow more drivers of tractor-trailers onboard restricted sailings and, if not, why not; (m) has an independent ombudsman ever been appointed to receive customer complaints regarding MAI’s service and, if not, why not; (n) how has the effectiveness of MAI’s maintenance management systems and practices improved since 2009; (o) does MAI track the average time between equipment failures, (i) if so, what trends have been observed in equipment performance measures since 2009, (ii) if not, why not; (p) what objective indicators has MAI established with respect to vessel turnaround time; and (q) what trends have been observed in the indicators mentioned in (p)?