Saturday, March 26, 2011 (AT DISSOLUTION)

Questions

Q-525 — October 26, 2010 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and tax treaties: (a) how many Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) has Canada signed that meet Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) standards in relation to the exchange of tax information; (b) with which countries has Canada completed a TIEA, and with which countries are negotiations on a TIEA underway; (c) following the signing of TIEAs, what information (i) has Canada requested and from which countries, (ii) has Canada received, from which countries and what are its consequences on the federal treasury; (d) how many tax treaties have been renegotiated to meet the OECD standard and with which countries; (e) how many tax treaties remain to be renegotiated to meet the OECD standard and with which countries; (f) in detail, how has the renegotiation of tax treaties affected the flow of information between Canada and other governments concerning tax avoidance by Canadian individuals and corporations; and (g) what have been the effects of the new TIEAs and renegotiated tax treaties on the federal treasury?

Q-526 — October 26, 2010 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — With regard to the corporate operational environment of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) what was or is the CRA budget for the auditing and enforcement of the tax implications of international financial transactions by Canadian individuals and corporations with offshore accounts, investments and holdings in each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; (b) how many full-time equivalent professionals were employed by the CRA for auditing and enforcement of the tax implications of international financial transactions by Canadians individuals and corporations with offshore accounts, investments and holdings in each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; (c) what was the net fiscal impact of the activities of CRA’s professional auditing and enforcement staff in terms of recovery of tax revenue from Canadian individuals and corporations with offshore accounts, investments and holdings in each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; and (d) what is the target for or expected impact of the activities of CRA’s professional auditing and enforcement staff in terms of recovery of tax revenue from Canadian individuals and corporations with offshore accounts, investments and holdings in fiscal year 2010-2011?

Q-536 — October 28, 2010 — Mr. Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River) — With regard to travel to Israel by Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and staff, for the period from January 1, 2010 to present, for each trip: (a) what were the dates; (b) what are the names of all Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and staff who travelled; (c) what was the purpose; (d) what was the itinerary; (e) what are the names and roles of all persons from Canada (other than Government of Canada employees) who accompanied the delegation at any point; (f) what was the total cost broken down by (i) air travel, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diem, (iv) meals, (v) hospitality, (vi) other expenses; and (g) who paid for the travel-related expenses in (f)?

Q-9392 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9402 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the city of Hamilton, Ontario, for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs — March 25, 2011

Q-9412 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — What is the total amount of government funding since April 2009 up to and including the current fiscal year allocated within the city of Hamilton, Ontario, by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs — March 25, 2011

Q-9422 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Nickel Belt, specifying each (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology — March 25, 2011

Q-9432 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Nickel Belt for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology — March 25, 2011

Q-9442 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — What is the total amount of government funding, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 1988-1989 up to fiscal year 2008-2009, allocated within the constituency of Sudbury, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9452 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to the federal support of Canadian athletes: (a) how much money did the government provide to each sport federation or association since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) how much money is committed to each national sport federation or association for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; and (c) how much money was spent by the government on (i) athlete's education, (ii) coaching, (iii) training, (iv) scholarships, (v) injury prevention, (vi) travel, (vii) accommodation?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage — March 25, 2011

Q-9462 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With respect to the Children's Fitness Tax Credit program: (a) how many families received payments under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; and (c) how many applications for the program were declined on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9472 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With respect to programs for young families: (a) how many new programs were introduced and how much money was spent by the government since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date (i) across Canada, (ii) by province; (b) which departments were responsible for program administration; (c) how much money was allocated to programs addressing the needs of young families (i) by department, (ii) by province; (d) how many programs for young families were finished and were not renewed since 2006 to date; and (e) how much money was spent for initiatives to support young families under the Canada Economic Action Plan each fiscal year since 2007-2008 to date (i) in total amount by year, (ii) by province?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9482 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to bonuses granted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: (a) how many bonuses were dispersed, broken down by (i) fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (ii) individual personnel, (iii) region, (iv) departmental division; and (b) what was the amount of the bonuses broken down by (i) fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (ii) individual personnel, (iii) region, (iv) departmental division?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development — March 25, 2011

Q-9492 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9502 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Timmins—James Bay for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9512 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), the liberation treatment, and multiple sclerosis (MS): (a) what consensus documents have been published regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, (i) by whom, (ii) on what dates, (iii) what were the recommendations, (iv) were they reviewed by the August 26, 2010, meeting of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in collaboration with the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC); (b) why were Canadian members of the International Union of Phlebology (IUP), who were part of the Consensus process regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, not consulted during the August 26 meeting of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); (c) what are the details of any plan the government has or is developing to collect evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, for example, through clinical trials or the creation of a registry; (d) what percentage of surgical procedures in Canada have been double-blind tested over the last 40 years and, for this percentage, (i) what is the risk of complication, (ii) what is considered an acceptable risk of complication, (iii) how do physicians judge acceptable risk and convey this risk to their patients, (iv) what actions do physicians take to reduce risk if the patient chooses to undertake the procedure; (e) when a medical treatment appears to be potentially effective, is its approval ever fast-tracked by the relevant Canadian authorities and, if so, (i) what are any examples of this in Canada over the last five years, (ii) has this ever happened with respect to MS, (iii) if so, who advocated for a fast-tracking and when, (iv) what process was followed to allow the treatment, (v) who made the decision to proceed, (vi) why was fast-tracking deemed necessary, (vii) what were the known risks at the time of the request, (viii) what, if any, negative impacts resulted; (f) what are the reasons for the length of time it has taken the relevant Canadian authorities to implement clinical trials or to develop a registry; (g) why did no member of the August 26 group declare any conflicts of interest, either real or perceived; (h) how many liberation procedures did the August 26 group estimate have been undertaken, (i) which countries were undertaking the procedure, (ii) to which countries were Canadians travelling, (iii) were the practitioners considered to be sufficiently trained, (iv) were the procedures in these countries found to be safe; (i) which people, labs and operating theatres had undertaken the diagnosis or treatment of CCSVI in Canada prior to the August 26 meeting; (j) why did the August 26 meeting not include Canadian experts in the imaging or treatment of CCSVI and for what reasons was Dr. Sandy McDonald not included as a participant; (k) why did the August 26 meeting not include international experts in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, data presented at international scientific conferences or site visits to labs and operating theatres, which were or had been undertaking diagnosis or treatment; (l) what is a comprehensive explanation of why the inclusion of CCSVI and liberation experts might have biased the sample of the August 26 group and whether such selection is an established practice at all CIHR meetings; (m) what are all the names of the group members who had spoken out against diagnosis or treatment of CCSVI or the liberation procedure prior to the August 26 meeting, what were the details of their positions, and what are their publically-available comments on the matter; (n) who were all the members of the August 26 group and, for each member, what were his or her stated or declared conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest; (o) what was the August 26 group’s assessment of and comments concerning all reviewed published papers, including both positive and negative observations; (p) did the August 26 group find it unusual that two of the reviewed papers had been accepted for publication in only six weeks, (i) did the group review whether this is a common practice in medicine, (ii) did the group consider how and why this might happen, (iii) did the group explore the expertise of those writing the papers, their experience, how their results compared with those of Dr.Zamboni and, if so, (iv) what were the group's findings for questions posed in (iii); (q) which neurologists, present at the August 26 meeting, had followed MS patients who were diagnosed with CCSVI and who had been treated for the condition, (i) how had neurologists followed them (e.g., appointment, EDSS score/another scale, MRI, neurological exam, etc.), (ii) what, if any, evidence did they present of patients' progress following the liberation procedure; (r) did the August 26 group find the reversal in the MSSC's position, who was part of the greater group, unusual, (i) did the group investigate or consider the reasons for this change in position and, if so, (ii) what observations did it make or conclusions did it come to regarding the reversal; (s) did the August 26 group estimate how its decision might impact Canadian MS patients, including (i) impacts on their mental health and how this might impact their disease, (ii) the number of Canadian MS patients who might feel forced to seek help outside Canada, (iii) how air travel, a compromised vascular system, recent surgery, and lack of follow-up in Canada might impact their disease and, if so, (iv) what are the results of those estimations; (t) what consensus documents are forthcoming, (i) by whom, (ii) when will they be published; (u) what is the work plan for the new expert working group which met for the first time on November 23, 2010, (i) who are the panellists, what are their qualifications and what is their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, (ii) how were the panellists chosen and by whom, (iii) what is the group’s mandate and how was it derived, (iv) what is the schedule of meetings, (v) what is the timeline for the group’s work, (vi) what evidence will be reviewed to reach any decision about possible clinical trials, registry, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up care, etc.; (v) what was the agenda for the November 23 meeting of the expert working group, (i) what abstracts, documents, and presentations were reviewed, (ii) which Canadian and international experts, with experience in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, were consulted, (iii) what Canadian and international unpublished data were explored, (iv) what Canadian and international labs or operating theatres were reviewed and visited; (w) for what reasons is the new group going to analyze interim and final results from seven studies funded by the Canadian and US MS Societies and why are these studies considered more worthwhile cases for analysis than other studies already completed; (x) when will the November 23 expert panel declare and post any conflicts of interest, following the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) guide, on the CIHR website to eliminate the possibility of real or perceived conflicts; (y) further to assurances made by the President of CIHR, Dr. Alain Beaudet, to the Subcommittee on Neurological Diseases on December 7, 2010, that MS patients who have had the liberation procedure would have follow-up, what are the details of how that follow-up will occur, specifically, (i) how will “a message be sent”, by whom, to whom, by when and what will the message be, (ii) specifically, will all patients who travel or travelled outside Canada be assured that their doctors will see them, that appointments will not be cancelled, that tests will not be cancelled, that they will have access to recommended prescriptions, that they will not lose their long-term care and that they will not be berated for making the decision to have liberation, (iii) how will this be enforced, (iv) what action should MS patients take if they are denied care, (v) to whom should they report a denial of care, (vi) what are the consequences for a physician or health practitioner or organization who delivers care but fails to provide follow-up care, (vii) will follow-up include ultrasound or MRI to image the veins of MS patients and, if so, how often will these imaging procedures occur and who will pay for them?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Health — March 25, 2011

Q-9522 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With respect to the Universal Child Care Benefit program: (a) how many families received payments under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how many single parents applied and received payments under this program (i) by province, (ii) in total; (c) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; and (d) how many applications for the program were declined on annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development — March 25, 2011

Q-9532 — February 7, 2011 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — With respect to the appointment of the Vice-Chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): (a) what criteria did Mr. Athanasios Pentefountas meet in order to qualify for this position; and (b) what criteria were used to select the best candidate for the position?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology — March 25, 2011

Q-9542 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): (a) how many full-time equivalents (FTEs) are expended by the CFIA on work related to food safety, as opposed to plant and animal health, on an annual basis in (i) the United States, (ii) Mexico, (iii) China, (iv) France, (v) Italy, (vi) Brazil, (vii) Chile, (viii) Thailand, (ix) Australia, (x) the United Kingdom; and (b) during 2011, will CFIA conduct any foreign country equivalency audits on the scale of the audits of Canada’s food safety system done by the United States Food Safety and Inspection Service, involving detailed and extensive review of policies, procedures and site visits to food production facilities and, if it will, which countries will it audit?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food — March 25, 2011

Q-9552 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With respect to the First-Time Home Buyers' Tax Credit program: (a) how many first-time home buyers received benefits under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (c) how many applications were received and how many were declined on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development — March 25, 2011

Q-9562 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regard to the British Columbia Treaty Process: (a) what substantive actions has the government taken to study the issue of accumulation of interest from treaty loans; (b) how does the debt from this interest affect the treaty negotiations; (c) when will the government outline its new approach to funding for First Nations self-government as announced in the March 2010 budget; (d) how has the federal mandate on negotiation changed since 2006; (e) how many treaty loans will come due in 2011; (f) what is the total value of those treaty loans coming due in 2011; (g) what is the total value of interest on those loans; (h) what steps has the government taken to extend the deadline on treaty loans; (i) when will the government report to the House of Commons on the treaty loan deadline; and (j) what is the government's communications plan as concerns the treaty loan deadline and First Nations, including those First Nations involved in treaty negotiations, those that have dropped out of the process and those First Nations that are not involved in treaty negotiations?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development — March 25, 2011

Q-9572 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With reference to the study by Doctor Masazumi Harada entitled "Long-term study on the effects of mercury contamination on two indigenous communities in Canada (1975-2004)": (a) does Health Canada’s blood guidance value account for long-term low-level exposure to mercury; (b) what steps has Health Canada taken to study births in Grassy Narrows where the children exhibited symptoms of congenital Minamata disease; (c) what actions has Health Canada taken to inform Grassy Narrows residents about the potential for congenital Minamata disease; (d) since Health Canada stopped monitoring mercury in Grassy Narrows in the 1990s, has there been any follow-up study to ensure mercury levels have not changed; (e) how many people have applied to the Mercury Compensation Board since its beginning; (f) how many of those people were denied compensation; (g) for what reasons was compensation denied; (h) how many people appealed the denial of compensation and, of those people who appealed, how many were successful; (i) what investigation has been done into the long-term health of workers at chloralkali plants in Canada; (j) have chloralkali plant workers received any compensation for adverse health effects from mercury; (k) are there any plans to add the residents of Wabauskang (formerly Quibell) on the Wabigoon River to the list of possible beneficiaries of the Mercury Compensation Board; (l) what has been done to identify and remediate all mercury hot spots across Canada; and (m) how is the government upholding the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in relation to persistent mercury pollution hotspots including, but not limited to, Thunder Bay, Sarnia and Cornwall?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development — March 25, 2011

Q-9582 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With respect to Agent Orange and Canadian veterans trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange spraying at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown: (a) what is the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to January 31, 2011, on the defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; (b) what is the total amount of money identified in (a) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011; (c) what is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to January 31, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; (d) what is the total amount of money identified in (c) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011; (e) what is the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to January 31, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; and (f) what is the total amount of money identified in (e) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs — March 25, 2011

Q-9592 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Winnipeg Centre for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or an agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or an agency over this period?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9602 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Winnipeg Centre, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9612 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to programs aimed at increasing youth participation in the election process and democratic governance in Canada: (a) what initiatives were undertaken by all departments from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) what Canadian not-for-profit organizations received funding and were engaged in this process; (c) what was the total funding allocation for these initiatives from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; and (d) are any new programs planned to be launched in fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs — March 25, 2011

Q-9622 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) — With regard to Environment Canada and enforcement: (a) how many full-time enforcement officers are currently employed by the government, broken down by number of (i) inspectors enforcing environmental protection or pollution laws, (ii) investigators enforcing environmental protection or pollution laws, (iii) conservation officers enforcing wildlife laws, (iv) enforcement officers in parks laws; (b) where are each of the officers in (a) based and deployed; (c) what are the budgets and actual expenditures for enforcement for the past five years; (d) what is the breakdown for full-time equivalents in enforcement for headquarters and for the regions for compliance promotion, inspection and investigation, and enforcement, respectively; (e) what increase in full-time equivalents and budget expenditures are anticipated in order to implement the promised improved monitoring regime for the oil sands sector; (f) what is the timeline for the deployment of any increased monitoring and enforcement activity for the oil sands sector; and (g) has the department instituted a specific enforcement and compliance strategy for the oil sands sector?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development — March 25, 2011

Q-9632 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona, specifying each department or agency, initiative or program, year and amount?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates — March 25, 2011

Q-9642 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With respect to the Medical Establishment licensing fee: (a) what is the rationale for the fee increase of 340 percent from $2100 to $7200 effective April 1, 2011; (b) if the rationale is improvements to the program, what will those improvements be; (c) are all dealers selling medical equipment in Canada licensed; and (d) are dealers selling medical equipment in the canadian market via mail orders licensed?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9652 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Building Canada Fund — Communities Component top-up in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Building Canada Fund — Major Infrastructure Component in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9662 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With regard to government support of Canadian small and medium-sized businesses: (a) how much money was spent on federal programs to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Canadian businesses on an annual basis since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; and (b) what new programs and initiatives will be introduced by the government in fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9672 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to corporate taxation: (a) how many corporations in Canada paid no tax in each of the last ten years; and (b) what were their combined revenues and profits, in each of the last ten years?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9682 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — What is the total amount of deferred corporate taxes for the tax years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance — March 25, 2011

Q-9692 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With respect to federal funding for Child Advocacy Centres announced in October 2010: (a) does the funding for this initiative come from an existing fund, or is it a new initiative with new funding; (b) what are the criteria by which applications for funding under this initiative will be evaluated; (c) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been received, broken down by month received, location of project and name of applicant; (d) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been approved, broken down by date approved, location of project and name of applicant; (e) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been rejected, broken down by date rejected, location of project and name of applicant; (f) is there a prescribed limit to the amount of funds that can be disbursed under this initiative within a single fiscal year; (g) is there a prescribed limit to the amount of funds that can be disbursed to a single applicant or project; (h) what happens to this initiative once the $5.25 million has been fully assigned; (i) what will happen to the funding once the five year commitment comes to an end; (j) what factors or circumstances changed between the time of the requests made by former Victims Ombudsman, Steve Sullivan, to include funding for Child Advocacy Centres in Budget 2009 and Budget 2010 and the time the government decided to announce funding in October 2010; (k) what existing programs or initiatives may have their funding or potential funding reduced or eliminated as a result of the announced funding for Child Advocacy Centres; (l) what specific branch, department or agency is responsible for administering the funding for Child Advocacy Centres; and (m) what is the legislative basis for this funding?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights — March 25, 2011

Q-9702 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regard to the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in New Brunswick by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL): (a) what is the most recent estimate of the total cost of the completed refurbishment; (b) what is the expected completion date; (c) what is the total funding transferred to AECL by the government to pay for cost overruns in each fiscal year; (d) what is the expected total amount that will be transferred to AECL by the completion date; (e) what amount has the government of New Brunswick requested from the government as compensation for replacement power costs; and (f) what commitments has the government made to the government of New Brunswick with regards to compensation for replacement power costs?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources — March 25, 2011

Q-9712 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or an agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or an agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects which received funding from a department or an agency over this period?

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the absence of a reply is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates — March 25, 2011

Q-9722 — February 8, 2011 — Mr. Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) — With regard to 439 Combat Support Squadron, based in Bagotville, Quebec: (a) does the government intend to close this squadron’s facilities, currently located in Bagotville and, if so, (i) why, (ii) when; (b) does the government intend to disband the Squadron and, if so, (i) why, (ii) when; (c) does the government intend to relocate this squadron and, if so, (i) where to, (ii) when; (d) how many jobs for soldiers and officers, reservists and civilians will be directly affected if this squadron is disbanded or relocated; and (e) for each job category listed in (d), how many positions will be (i) eliminated, (ii) relocated?

Q-9732 — February 9, 2011 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to the Canadian International Development Agency’s (CIDA) decision, dated November 27, 2009, to discontinue funding for the KAIROS organization: (a) did the Minister personally sign the final memorandum regarding KAIROS funding on November 27, 2009; (b) if the Minister signed her name to the final memorandum on November 27, 2009, did the final memorandum, at the time of the Minister’s signing it, contain the handwritten word “not” in the final sentence; (c) did the Minister herself handwrite the word “not” into the final memorandum; (d) if the Minister did not handwrite the word “not” in the final memorandum, who would have had the authority to do so; and (e) did the Minister recommend that CIDA funding to KAIROS should continue?

Q-9742 — February 9, 2011 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to the rising costs of the F-35 stealth fighter jets and the fact that United States officials have publicly questioned the progress and efficacy of the F-35s: (a) in what meetings with the United States has the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) or the Department of National Defence (DND) participated at which there were discussions of the increasing cost of the jets from the initial $9 billion assessment to approximately $21 billion; (b) in what meetings with the United States has DFAIT or DND participated at which there were discussions about the impact that production delays surrounding the F-35s would have on Canada’s timeline to receive the jets and the amount that the jets will cost; and (c) what is the most recent projected cost for Canada’s purchase of the F-35 jets?

Q-9752 — February 9, 2011 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to the situation in Haiti following the recent earthquake: (a) at what meetings has the government participated where there were discussions concerning the promotion of effective leadership and good governance in Haiti; (b) what measures has the government undertaken to ensure that the money pledged to Haiti is getting delivered on the ground; (c) has the government looked into any other assistance programs besides direct economic aid to help the people of Haiti; and (d) what measures has the government taken to reopen the embassy in Haiti and restore consular services?

Q-9762 — February 9, 2011 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to regional Ministerial responsibilities, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006, inclusively: (a) which Ministers have had regional representation responsibilities and for which provinces, territories or other regions; (b) what were the start and end dates of those responsibilities, if applicable; (c) what were the instructions given to each Minister in respect of his or her regional Ministerial responsibilities; (d) what were the operating expenditures for each Minister in respect of his or her regional representation responsibilities, including how much was spent on wages, salaries, contracts for the provision of services, contracts for the provision of goods, office leases and other expenditures, giving particulars of those expenditures; (e) where were these leased offices located; (f) how many employees are or were employed by each Minister’s regional office; (g) where did each employee have his or her principle place of employment; and (h) what were the travel and hospitality expenses of each Minister or Minister’s employee in respect of their regional Ministerial responsibilities?

Q-9772 — February 9, 2011 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to a verification strategy for Métis identification systems: (a) what are the purposes of the proposed or actual contract or contracts with the Canadian Standards Association to develop a verification strategy for Métis identification systems; (b) what is the monetary value of the contract or contracts; (c) what are the effective dates of the contract or contracts; (d) what is the file number of the contract or contracts; (e) what is the scope of the work to be carried out under any such contract; (f) was any such contract awarded on a sole-source or competitive basis; (g) if any such contract was awarded on a competitive basis, how many bids were received; (h) are there provisions for Métis employment or procurement benefits under this contract; (i) has the government consulted with Métis representative organizations concerning Métis identification generally or as concerns this contract in particular and, if so, (i) with which Métis representative organizations has it consulted, (ii) what was the nature, duration, and extent of such consultation, (iii) what was the outcome of those consultations; (j) what definition or definitions of “Métis” are to be used for this verification strategy; (k) what is the rationale behind the definition or definitions of “Métis” that are to be used; and (l) is the verification strategy consistent with Articles 9 and 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, if not, what is the nature and extent of the inconsistency?

Q-9782 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Dosanjh (Vancouver South) — With regard to Health Canada’s wait times strategy: (a) what are the most recent wait times as reported by each province in each of the five key areas of the government’s wait times strategy (cancer, heart, diagnostic imaging, joint replacement and sight restoration); and (b) what was the amount of money earmarked for wait time reduction disbursed by the government to each province in each year of the government’s wait times strategy?

Q-9792 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With respect to the June 2001 report entitled “Coastal Impacts of Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise on Prince Edward Island”: (a) have there been any updates to the study since the release of the report in June 2001; and (b) has the government conducted any separate studies since June 2001 on the impacts of climate change and rising sea-levels on Prince Edward Island?

Q-9802 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to each of the Air Force's combat support squadrons: (a) does the government intend to close any of these squadrons' facilities and, if so, (i) why, (ii) when; (b) does the government intend to disband any of these squadrons and, if so, (i) why, (ii) when; (c) does the government intend to relocate any of these squadrons and, if so, (i) where to, (ii) when; (d) how many jobs for soldiers and officers, reservists and civilians will be directly affected if any of these squadrons are disbanded or relocated; (e) for each job category listed in (d), how many positions will be (i) eliminated, (ii) relocated; and (f) if the government does not presently intend to close any of these squadrons, has it developed plans for the potential closure of each or any of them, specifying which?

Q-9812 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Ottawa Centre, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-9822 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Gatineau, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-9832 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Hull—Aylmer, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-9862 — February 14, 2011 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — With regard to the government's planned purchase of 65 F-35 aircraft: (a) what are the estimated industrial benefits to Manitoba in terms of dollars and jobs; (b) what methodology was used to determine these estimates; (c) when were these estimates calculated and have they since been reviewed; (d) did the government consult with potential suppliers in Manitoba regarding the decision to not seek mandated levels of domestic content or industrial regional benefits as part of the procurement; (e) if yes, when did these consultations take place, with whom, and what were the conclusions; (f) if not, has the government received any unsolicited requests from suppliers in Manitoba to include guaranteed industrial benefits as part of the F-35 contract; and (g) is it possible that a change in the size of the F-35 procurement by other nations could negatively affect the estimated level of industrial benefits to Manitoba, and what are the government's estimates regarding the likelihood and scope of such a change?

Q-9872 — February 14, 2011 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — With regard to the rate increase for the Pensioners’ Dental Services Plan (PDSP): (a) what organizations did the government consult with before increasing the monthly contribution rates for PDSP members; (b) going back 10 years, what have the annual contribution rates been for PDSP members; (c) going back 10 years, what have dental health professionals been paid by the PDSP, broken down by year and by province; (d) going back 10 years, what has been the average cost of supplies used by dental health professionals and paid for by the PDSP, broken down by year and by province; (e) going back 10 years, what has been the average cost of equipment used by dental health professionals and paid for by the PDSP, broken down by year and by province; (f) going back 10 years, what have been the annual PDSP costs; (g) going back 10 years, what services have been covered by the PDSP, broken down by year; (h) going back 10 years, how many PDSP members have there been, broken down by year, age and gender; (i) going back 10 years, how many pensioners have there been, broken down by year, age and gender; (j) what factors contributed to the increase in monthly contribution rates for PDSP members; (k) what data led to the decision to increase the contribution rate for PDSP members, and what were the results of all comparative studies done on the subject; and (l) what percentage of PDSP members’ annual contributions go to pay for PDSP administration costs (Sun Life Canada)?

Q-9882 — February 15, 2011 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With respect to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the government’s commitment of $2.85 billion over 5 years for the Muskoka Initiative: (a) for each project or program that qualifies for the renewed $1.75 billion in existing funding, (i) what is its name and objective, (ii) what is the total federal funding commitment, (iii) what is the timeframe for the project or program; (b) for each program or project that qualifies for the new $1.1 billion in funding announced on February 1, 2011, (i) what is its name and objective, (ii) what is the total federal funding commitment, (iii) what is the timeframe for the project or program; (c) for each of the bilateral, multilateral and partnership branches, (i) which partner and country is receiving funding, (ii) in what amount is the funding being received; and (d) what plans does the government have to inform Parliament and the public regarding this spending?

Q-9892 — February 15, 2011 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to departmental spending from 2006 to present, what were the total costs of rentals and purchases of individual staging, lighting and audio equipment, and production and assorted technical costs for all government announcements and public events?

Q-9902 — February 15, 2011 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With respect to proficiency in the second official language: (a) what is the language proficiency level of each of the chief executives of federal institutions; and (b) when did each chief executive obtain this level?

Q-9912 — February 15, 2011 — Mr. Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes) — With respect to the transfer of the government's ownership of the retaining walls built along the shores of the Saint Lawrence River at Boucherville, Varennes, Verchères and Contrecoeur: (a) when did this transfer occur; (b) to whom was the ownership of these structures transferred; (c) in which ways was this transfer implemented; and (d) where have these transactions been registered?

Q-9922 — February 17, 2011 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to the purchase of 65 F-35(A) fighter jets for future use in the Canadian Forces: (a) when and on how many occasions did the Department of National Defence (DND) submit a justification for “the legal authority to use an exception to competitive bidding”, as is required in section 3.15[a] of the Treasury Board Guideline; and (b) for each submission, referenced in the government’s response to part (a) of this question, that utilized the exception to competitive bidding found under section 3.15[a][iv] of the Treasury Board Guidelines, what justification is provided that would allow the government and DND to consider the F-35(A) as the only aircraft capable of meeting all of the department’s high-level mandatory requirements for this procurement project despite the department’s knowledge that the F-35(A) cannot meet the mandatory requirement pertaining to air-to-air refuelling?

Q-9932 — February 24, 2011 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to Transport Canada and, more specifically, fees that have been collected from vessel owners, vessel operators and all marine traffic users as a result of access or entry to any port located geographically in Placentia Bay, for fiscal years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) what fees have been paid to the government or any department, federal corporation or agency; and (b) what has been the reason or purpose of these collected fees and what are the specific amounts for each reason or purpose?

Q-9942 — February 24, 2011 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to Industry Canada and, more specifically, funding that has been provided through the department for broadband initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) broken down by fiscal year, from 2007-2008 to date, (i) what specific amounts of funding have been approved for projects and under what program was the funding approved, (ii) what are the specific details of each project, (iii) when was the funding approved, (iv) how much funding was requested in the application, (v) who were the applicants for each project; (b) broken down by fiscal year, from 2007-2008 to date, (i) how many applications were submitted that did not receive funding, (ii) what were the individual requested amounts for each application, (iii) who were the applicants for each specific application; and (c) broken down by fiscal year, from 2007-2008 to date, what were the total amounts of funding provided for broadband projects in Canada?

Q-9952 — February 24, 2011 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and, more specifically, the terms of an agreement with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to transfer the delivery of Employment Insurance-funded employment benefits and support measures through the Labour Market Development Agreement (LMDA) effective November 2, 2009, what are the specific terms and conditions of this agreement?

Q-9962 — February 24, 2011 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With respect to Crown copyright: (a) what is the total revenue collected, in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive, by each department or agency for the licensing of the use of works for which copyright is held by Canada or a department or agency of the government of Canada; (b) what are the works which have been so licensed, specifying the title or nature of the work, and the date of publication or creation of the work; (c) what has been the total cost to each department or agency to administer the licensing of those works in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive; (d) how many infringements of Crown or federal government copyright have been the subject of litigation or other action in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive; (e) what have been the outcomes or resolutions of each such litigation or other action; (f) how many applications to license the use of Crown copyright works have been declined or rejected since fiscal year 2005-2006, specifying the title or nature of the work, the date of publication or creation of the work and the reason for denying or rejecting the application; and (g) what steps, if any, has the government taken to mitigate the impact or costs to users of perpetual Crown copyright in unpublished works?

Q-9972 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to the safety management systems (SMS) put in place by airlines since 2005, and following the appearance of the Chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on February 21, 2007: (a) how many SMS inspections were carried out by Transport Canada inspectors, and on which airlines; (b) for each inspection carried out by Transport Canada, was the airline in compliance with the security regulations in place at the time of inspection; (c) for each inspection that was completed on an airline that was not in compliance with the regulations, what measures were taken by the airline to ensure that compliance was achieved; (d) did Transport Canada verify Aveos SMS compliance and, if yes, when will its report be concluded; and (e) does Transport Canada intend to review the SMS regulations that airlines are subject to in the near future?

Q-9982 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to the national crime prevention strategy and the youth gang prevention fund: (a) how much money has been spent on each of these programs in each fiscal year since 2005-2006; and (b) how much money has been spent on advertising for each of these programs in each fiscal year since 2005-2006?

Q-9992 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — 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)?

Q-10002 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to a letter relating to the Canada Evidence Act sent by the Minister of Justice to Professor Mike Lahaie, Canadore School of Law and Justice, on January 18, 2010: (a) does section 4 of this Act apply only to spouses in opposite-sex marriages; (b) does section 4 include spouses in same-sex marriages; (c) does the Minister intend on introducing any legislation to revise section 4 of this Act; and (d) in light of the Minister’s suggestion that individuals should challenge the interpretation of this section on constitutional grounds, does the Minister intend to restore the Court Challenges Program which was discontinued on September 25, 2006?

Q-10012 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Freeman (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — With regard to Old Age Security payments, how many Canadians are currently estimated to be eligible for but do not receive: (a) the Guaranteed Income Supplement and, of these, how many are Quebeckers; (b) the Allowance for the Survivor and, of these, how many are Quebeckers; and (c) the Spouse’s Allowance and, of these, how many are Quebeckers?

Q-10022 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Zarac (LaSalle—Émard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Veterans Affairs Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10032 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Zarac (LaSalle—Émard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Public Works and Government Services Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10042 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Zarac (LaSalle—Émard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of National Defence: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10052 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With regard to BlackBerry devices owned by the government: (a) how many operational BlackBerry devices does each department, agency and crown corporation currently have; and (b) how many older or obsolete BlackBerry devices does Public Works and Government Services Canada currently hold which are not in use?

Q-10062 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With regard to the $280,000 that the Minister of Public Safety asked to be transferred to the his Regional Office in Winnipeg: (a) for what were these funds intended to be used; (b) why was this expense not anticipated at the beginning of the fiscal year; and (c) how many staff, paid and unpaid, currently work at the Minister's Regional Office?

Q-10072 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Privy Council Office: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10082 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Justice Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10092 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10102 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Status of Women Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10112 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Department of Canadian Heritage, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10122 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to the sale of Statistics Canada data and products, how much revenue external to Government of Canada sources did Statistics Canada make in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 from the sale of products and services, broken down by Census-related and non-Census-related products and services, excluding special surveys?

Q-10132 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10142 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Department of National Defence, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10152 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Public Safety Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10162 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Privy Council Office, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10172 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — With regard to Canadian International Development Agency funding since 2009, what is the name of every organization that has not had its funding renewed?

Q-10182 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office, as of February 15, 2011, how many people did it employ and, of those: (a) how many make a salary of $100,000 per year or more; and (b) how many make a salary of $50,000 per year or less?

Q-10192 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, for every year since 2006, how many full-time staff have been employed by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office?

Q-10202 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Minna (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, for all correspondence received since February 6, 2006, that was addressed to the Prime Minister, how many pieces of correspondence had personal contact information recorded and transferred to the Conservative Party of Canada?

Q-10212 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Minna (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the government's repsonse to Q-799, particularly the Minister of Natural Resouces' statement that from fiscal year 2006-2007 to the current fiscal year the Port Hope Area Initiative was budgeted to spend a total of $53.4 million but spent only $51.9 million, why was it necessary to request an additional $52.5 million from the Treasury Board?

Q-10222 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Minna (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the government's response to Q-795, particularly the Minister of Natural Resouces' statement in the answer to part (c) that no construction has begun on the Port Hope Area Initiative, why have 19 claims for over $800,000 been paid out for this initiative?

Q-10232 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Minna (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources, for every year since 2006, how many people have been employed by the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office?

Q-10242 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10252 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Health Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10262 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Public Health Agency of Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10272 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources, are there any unlicensed low level radioactive waste storage sites in Canada and, if so, where are they located?

Q-10282 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier) — With respect to the Skills Link program, in the last fiscal year and in the current fiscal year: (a) by riding and by year, (i) how many applications were submitted, (ii) how many applications were deemed eligible, (iii) how many applications were deemed eligible but not approved by the Minister, (iv) how many applications were recommended but not approved by the Minister, (v) how many applications were approved by the Minister; (b) by riding and by year, (i) with respect to question (a)(i), what is the total dollar amount of applications submitted, (ii) with respect to question (a)(ii), what is the total dollar amount of applications deemed eligible, (iii) with respect to question (a)(iii), what is the total dollar amount of applications deemed eligible but rejected by the Minister, (iv) with respect to question (a)(iv), what is the total dollar amount of applications approved by the Minister; (c) in relation to (a)(ii), was the Boscoville 2000 application deemed eligible (i) by the local Service Canada Centre, (ii) by the regional Service Canada Centre, (iii) by Service Canada’s headquarters; (d) in relation to question (a)(iii), was the Boscoville 2000 application recommended to the Minister; (e) did the Minister reject the Boscoville 2000 application; (f) were funds remaining in the Skills Link envelope when the Boscoville 2000 application was evaluated; (g) in relation to (f), what funds remained in the Skills Link envelope by region and subregion when the Boscoville 2000 application was rejected; (h) with respect to the handling of the Boscoville 2000 application, did the Minister issue instructions to her staff and, if so, what were these instructions; (i) with respect to the Boscoville 2000 application, what were the grounds for refusal; and (j) with respect to the letter sent by Mr. Rodriguez on September 23, 2010, (i) did the Minister receive and read the letter, (ii) what instructions were given by the Minister to follow up on the letter, (iii) was the application evaluated again in response to the letter?

Q-1029 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Westmount—Ville-Marie, Wascana and Nickel Belt, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1030 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Brossard—La Prairie, Honoré-Mercier, Parkdale—High Park, British Columbia Southern Interior and Edmonton—Strathcona, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1031 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, Brampton—Springdale, Etobicoke North, Malpeque and Random—Burin—St. George's, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1032 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Welland, Yukon, St. Paul's, Mississauga—Brampton South and Cape Breton—Canso, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1033 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis, Scarborough Southwest, Mississauga South, Sudbury and Avalon, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1034 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Ajax—Pickering, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, London—Fanshawe, Markham—Unionville and Ottawa South, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1035 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Scarborough—Guildwood, Brampton West, Charlottetown, Winnipeg South Centre and Labrador, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-10362 — March 1, 2011 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With regard to the 52 recommendations made in the report entitled “Issues Related to the High Number of Murdered and Missing Women in Canada” by the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials Missing Women Working Group, released September 2010, why were there no recommendations directed towards ensuring the safety of sex workers?

Q-10372 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to declining fish stocks in the Maritimes, especially in the Gulf Region, and the predatory effects of seals thereon, does the government intend to increase the quota for the culling of the Harp Seal and the Grey Seal herds to mitigate the seals’ impact on fish stocks?

Q-10382 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Small Craft Harbours program and the $3.2 million announced on April 23, 2010, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to improve Small Craft Harbours in Prince Edward Island: (a) how much of the $3.2 million has been spent or has been identified as going to be spent in fiscal year 2010-2011; and (b) where was the money spent and how much money was spent on each harbour?

Q-10392 — March 1, 2011 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to the recent changes to the way in which Service Canada will be delivering services: (a) what is the rationale for changing the way in which Service Canada has been operating across Canada; (b) how much money is to be saved by undertaking such changes; (c) how many Service Canada community offices will be closed beacuse of this decision; (d) how many people will lose their jobs as a result of this decision; and (e) what are the supposed benefits of such changes?

Q-10402 — March 1, 2011 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to rural Canadians and the government's increased emphasis on accessing government services via the Internet: (a) what is the government's plan to address rural Canadians' lack of access to basic Internet; (b) what is the government's plan to ensure that rural Canadians who have no access to an Internet connection can access government programs and services in a timely manner; and (c) what is the government's plan to ensure that Canadians are technologically literate and capable of using the Internet to access essential government services?

Q-10412 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche) — With respect to the Dalhousie spur line: (a) on what date did the Minister of Transport authorize CN to discontinue this rail line; and (b) what were the reasons for this decision?

Q-10422 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche) — With respect to the National Highway System (NHS), for core routes, feeder routes and remote northern routes: (a) what is the process for suggesting the addition of a new route to the Council of Ministers of Transportation and Highway Safety; and (b) how many provinces and territories must support the addition of a new route for it to be included in the NHS?

Q-10432 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With respect to PPP Canada Inc., for fiscal years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to date: (a) as concerns the first and second rounds of project proposals, (i) how many projects have been selected for funding, (ii) what amount of funding has been committed to each project, (iii) how many applications were received for the funding of projects within or substantially connected with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and (b) if any projects were identified in the response to (a)(iii), what is the general status of each associated application, specifying, for example, whether the application has been rejected or is currently being reviewed?

Q-10442 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to Service Canada’s job cuts in rural areas: (a) is Service Canada planning to reverse its decision to eliminate jobs in the riding of Cardigan; (b) what are Service Canada’s reasons for cutting jobs in rural areas and moving them to larger centers; (c) how many jobs will be cut permanently, both in the Cardigan riding and nation-wide; and (d) what are the projected overall long-term effects on rural populations with regard to access to government services?

Q-10452 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the government’s use of random selection in selecting applicants for jobs in the Public Service: (a) why is this process used over other possible selection processes; and (b) does the government have any plans to eliminate the random selection process in the future?

Q-10462 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Canadian Heritage: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10472 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10482 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at NAV CANADA: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10492 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10502 — March 2, 2011 — Ms. Folco (Laval—Les Îles) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Natural Resources Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10512 — March 2, 2011 — Ms. Folco (Laval—Les Îles) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Industry Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10522 — March 2, 2011 — Ms. Folco (Laval—Les Îles) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10532 — March 2, 2011 — Ms. Folco (Laval—Les Îles) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10542 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Canadian International Development Agency: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10552 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Public Safety Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10562 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10572 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Western Economic Diversification Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10582 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Coderre (Bourassa) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of Finance: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10592 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Coderre (Bourassa) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Environment Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10602 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — Regarding the operations and management of Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI), what are the details of: (a) MAI’s (i) Corporate Plan 2004-2005 to 2009-2010, (ii) Corporate Plan 2005-2006 to 2010-2011, (iii) Corporate Plan 2006-2007 to 2011-2012, (iv) Corporate Plan 2007-2008 to 2012-2013, (v) Corporate Plan 2008-2009 to 2013-2014, (vi) Corporate Plan 2009-2010 to 2014-2015; (b) each of the respective Corporate Plan Summaries for each Five Year Corporate Plan identified in (a); (c) all Minutes of Meetings of the Board of Directors of MAI held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (d) all minutes, records or notes of Corporate Planning Sessions of the Board of Directors of MAI held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (e) all President’s Reports submitted to the Board of Directors of MAI between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (f) all Chief Executive Officer's (CEO) Reports to the Board of Directors of MAI submitted between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (g) all reports, minutes of meetings or record of meetings held between either the President, the CEO or the Board of Directors or any Committee of the Board of Directors with either the Minister of State (Transport) or the Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (h) all reports, minutes of meetings or record of meetings held between either the President, the CEO or the Board of Directors or any Committee of the Board of Directors and either the Deputy Minister of Transport Canada or any Assistant or Associate Deputy Minister of Transport Canada held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (i) all draft reports, findings, recommendations and conclusions forwarded to Transport Canada by the two firms, Fleetway Incorporated and Oceanic Consulting Corporation, which were contracted to provide input on various aspects of MAI’s fleet renewal deliberations, as referred to in the President’s Report to the Board of Directors of MAI on September 23, 2005; (j) the final reports, findings, recommendations and conclusions submitted to either MAI or to Transport Canada by each of the two firms, Fleetway Incorporated and Oceanic Consulting Corporation, whom were contracted by either MAI or Transport Canada to provide input on various aspects of MAI’s fleet renewal; (k) all responses made by MAI to Transport Canada regarding MAI’s position on each of the recommendations arising out of MAI’s Advisory Committee report chaired by Captain Sid Hynes, as was requested of MAI by the Deputy Minister of Transport Canada, along with any replies to these messages from the recipients; (l) all minutes, records and notes of the meeting or meetings held between officials of MAI and representatives of Canadian shipyards regarding MAI’s fleet renewal requirements and bidding opportunities of new vessels; (m) all minutes, records and notes prepared by management officials of MAI providing references to an analysis on the future fleet renewal to either the President of MAI, the CEO of MAI or to the members of the Board of Directors of MAI; (n) all minutes, records and notes including electronic messages prepared by Transport Canada officials for either the Minister of Transportation, Communities and Infrastructure or the Minister of State (Transport) or to members of their respective offices, regarding analysis and discussion of the future fleet renewal recommendations provided by Fleetway Incorporated and by Oceanic Consulting Corporation along with any replies to these messages from the recipients; (o) all minutes, records and notes including electronic messages prepared by Transport Canada to the Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities or to the Minister of State (Transport) or to members of their respective offices, pertaining to the motion passed by MAI’s Board of Directors that MAI’s fleet replacement program consist of four new vessels along with any replies to these messages from the recipients; (p) all costs incurred to re-position the MV Blue Puttees from MAI facilities to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the unveiling ceremony presided over by the Prime Minister on February 11, 2011; (q) all costs incurred by MAI in the re-position the MV Blue Puttees from MAI facilities to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for public display during the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador (HNL) Annual General Meeting and Convention held between February 24 to 27, 2011; (r) the cost of all public relations, advertising, marketing and promotion planning, preparation, activities and campaigns broken down by event or campaign incurred by or on behalf of MAI between April 1, 2010, and March 1, 2011; (s) any incident reports from events that occurred affecting the MV Blue Puttees while in transit to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the February 11, 2011, unveiling ceremony including the situation of listing of the vessel while enroute and the damage that occurred to both the St. John’s Port Authority docking facilities and to the MV Blue Puttees while docking in St. John’s for that event; and (t) any planned or potential labour force adjustment strategies or requirements within MAI expected or possible in the next three calendar years?

Q-10612 — March 3, 2011 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to Canada-Iran trade relations: (a) how many trade commissioners does Canada have in Iran and what is the nature of their work; (b) what is the nature and extent of Canada-Iran trade, in what areas does such trade exist, and is any trade carried out with Iran in the energy, technology, banking, insurance, and/or transportation sector; (c) is there any Export Development Corporation support for any Canadian companies operating in Iran and, if so, what is the nature of that support; (d) what bilateral agreements exist between Canada and Iran and do these bilateral agreements comport with the United Nations and Canadian sanctions; (e) do the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA) regulations enacted by Canada in July 2010 apply to the Canadian subsidiaries of foreign corporations doing business with Iran and, if not, will the government amend the SEMA regulations to ensure that it is applicable to these subsidiaries; and (f) has the government enacted any forms of sanctions respecting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or any of its agents?

Q-10622 — March 3, 2011 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — With regard to the firearms training program for Canada Border Services Agency officers: (a) how many training facilities are there; (b) where are these facilities located; (c) is accommodation for trainees and trainers located on site or provided through commercial sources; and (d) what is the duration of the program for the trainees?

Q-10632 — March 3, 2011 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — With regard to the corporate asset review announced in the 2008 Economic and Fiscal Statement: (a) how many assets have been reviewed; (b) which assets were reviewed; and (c) were assets sold and, if so, (i) how many, (ii) what were they, (iii) what were the purchase prices, (iv) who were the buyers?

Q-10642 — March 3, 2011 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — With regard to public opinion polling across all governmental departments since January 1, 2011: (a) how many polls were conducted by each department; and (b) for each poll, what (i) was the subject matter of the poll, (ii) questions were asked, (iii) was the sample size, (iv) was the period of time in which the poll was conducted, (v) were the results, (vi) was the department for which the poll was conducted?

Q-10652 — March 3, 2011 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 granted by Status of Women Canada since January 1, 2008, what are: (a) the names of the recipients; (b) the amounts of the grant or contribution; (c) the dates of the grant or contribution; (d) the dates of length of funding; and (e) the descriptions of the purpose?

Q-10662 — March 3, 2011 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to the Air Travellers Security Charge in 2010: (a) how much money was collected and where was this money spent, in both real and accrual sums; and (b) does the government have any information concerning how this fee compares to airport security charges in other countries and, if so, what are the details of this information?

Q-10672 — March 10, 2011 — Mr. Bagnell (Yukon) — With regard to oil spill clean-ups in Northern Arctic waters: (a) what dispersants does the government use or have plans to use in this process; (b) what is the quantity of the government’s stocks of these dispersants; (c) what tests has the government conducted concerning the use of these dispersants in the clean-up of an Arctic oil spill; (d) what tests has the government conducted concerning the effects of these dispersants on (i) the Arctic environment, (ii) Arctic wildlife; (e) when and by whom were the tests in (c) and (d) conducted; (f) what were the costs of the tests in (c) and (d); (g) does the government have a regimen in place for the ongoing evaluation of dispersants to be used in Arctic spills; (h) how are the dispersants which the government evaluates graded in terms of effectiveness for use in the Arctic; (i) in the event of such an occurrence, does the government have plans to use a dispersant to break up a spill at the source of the leak in Arctic waters; (j) what is the government’s assessment of the effectiveness of the use of dispersants at the source of a spill in the clean-up process; and (k) what, if any, tests has the government conducted to develop a strategy for using dispersants to break up spills at the source, and what are the costs for these tests?

Q-10682 — March 10, 2011 — Mr. Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain) — With regard to the projects submitted to Broadband Canada by Barret Xplore Inc. for the geographic service area QC-2470: (a) which projects have been submitted; (b) which projects have received funding and how much has each one received; and (c) which projects, if any, are awaiting funding approval?

Q-10692 — March 17, 2011 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — With regard to the ongoing disputes between the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and one of its former employees, Dr. Chander Grover, between January 1, 2004, and October 31, 2010: (a) how much money has the NRC spent on legal services and costs for services provided by external legal counsel; (b) how much money has the NRC spent on legal services and costs for services provided by the Department of Justice; (c) how much money has the NRC spent on external communications advice; and (d) how much has the NRC spent on external consultants?

Q-10702 — March 17, 2011 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — With regard to the Orders in Council for the initial appointments of Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer, and Jacques Gourde, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, as of March 15, 2011: (a) what are the numbers of these Orders in Council (Privy Council (P.C.) Number); (b) what are the dates of their coming into force; (c) why are these Orders in Council not available in the Orders in Council public database; (d) when will they be available in the Orders in Council database; (e) what is the full public content of each of these Orders in Council; (f) why is the number of the Order in Council for the Official Languages Commissioner missing from the October 28, 2006, Canada Gazette; and (g) when were the numbers of the Orders in Council for the Chief Electoral Officer and the Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages published in the Canada Gazette?

Q-10712 — March 21, 2011 — Mrs. Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert) — With regard to the report titled “Noise From Civilian Aircraft in the Vicinity of Airports”, produced in 2001 by Health Canada’s Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau: (a) can the government confirm whether the recommendation which states that “The available research does not support the contention that there is a significant risk of chronic stress and/or cardiovascular disease arising from long term exposure to outdoor daily aircraft noise levels above 65 dBA” is still valid; (b) has there been continuous assessment of research findings on the potential for chronic stress and cardiovascular risks from aircraft noise, as recommended; and (c) has the report been updated or is it in the process of being updated?

Q-10722 — March 21, 2011 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — What is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2009-2010, up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Vancouver East, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-10732 — March 22, 2011 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With regard to the PROminent FUNCtionaries of the Communist Party (PROFUNC), run by the government between 1950-1983: (a) when requested by an individual who believes his or her name may be on the PROFUNC list, will the government disclose whether or not their name is on the list; (b) what was done with the names on the PROFUNC list once PROFUNC was discontinued; (c) were any of the names or information about individuals named on the PROFUNC list ever turned over to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), or any other security agency, at any time after 1983; (d) were any of the names or information about individuals named on the list ever shared with the Government of the United States or any of its security, policing or military bodies; (e) did any of the RCMP personnel who helped compile or maintain PROFUNC work for CSIS or other security agencies following the end of the program; and (f) what other materials were created by individuals working for PROFUNC between 1950-1983 (i.e., minutes of meetings, reports filed by security agents or other documents)?

Q-10742 — March 22, 2011 — Mr. Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes) — With respect to Health Canada and the 53 recommendations in the report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled “Natural Health Products: A New Vision”: (a) how many recommendations were implemented; (b) what recommendations were implemented; and (c) what recommendations were not implemented and why?

Q-10752 — March 22, 2011 — Mr. Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — With regard to the operations of the Canadian Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB): (a) what are the total costs incurred in each of the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, broken down by (i) operating costs, (ii) expenses incurred by Board members and Board staff, including expenses related to BlackBerries, mobile phones, and other forms of communication devices, (iii) costs of travel, including airfare, trains, mileage reimbursements, ground transport, including taxis and limousines used by Board members and staff, etc.; (b) what is the cost of holding board meetings; (c) how many staff are employed by the Board, and what are the salary scales for each position; (d) when and where have meetings of the Board been held since the CEIFB was established; and (e) what are the details of any correspondence between the CEIFB and the Privy Council Office, the Department of Finance, the Canada Revenue Agency and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada on the matter of employment insurance rate setting and on matters related to setting policy?

Q-10762 — March 23, 2011 — Mr. Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona) — With regard to the East Elmwood Community Centre in Winnipeg, which burned to the ground, what can the government do to assist with its rebuilding?

Q-10772 — March 24, 2011 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — With respect to the installation of telecommunication towers and given the government’s jurisdiction over telecommunications and telecommunication facilities: (a) will the government amend its legislation and regulations to address the many concerns of local citizens and governments; (b) when does it intend to revise Safety Code 6, which is used by Industry Canada in its telecommunications regulations; (c) on what data does the government base its claims that Safety Code 6 is indeed safe; (d) when was Safety Code 6 last updated; (e) has the government asked Health Canada to review international studies on the safety of the areas surrounding communication towers; (f) what international studies has the government consulted; (g) how does the government plan to ensure that local jurisdiction over land-use planning and control is respected; (h) when consultations reach an impasse, what opportunities for an agreement are available to the government, the telecommunications industry and local governments; (i) does the government intend to review the agreement process involving stakeholders in the installation of telecommunication towers; (j) how many cases has Industry Canada reviewed as part of its decision-making process; (k) what are the names of the parties involved in these decisions; and (l) how many of these decisions were in favour of the proponent and how many were in favour of the local citizens and governments?

2 Response requested within 45 days