;

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Bilingual view PDF


Wednesday, December 12, 2012 (No. 197)

Questions

The complete list of questions on the Order Paper is available for consultation at the Table in the Chamber and on the Internet. Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.

Q-1020² — October 25, 2012 — — With regard to appointments within the Department of Justice between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011: (a) how many people were appointed; (b) to what position was each person appointed; (c) for each appointment, who was the delegated or sub-delegated official responsible for making the appointment; (d) on the basis of what criteria did the Department determine whether to implement an advertised or non-advertised appointment process; (e) for each appointment, which of the criteria in (d) were met or not met; (f) for which of the appointments was an advertised appointment process implemented; (g) for each advertised appointment, in what media outlets was the appointment advertised; (h) on what dates were each of the advertisements in (g) posted in each media outlet; (i) for each advertised appointment, what was the title of the position as stated in the advertisement; (j) for each advertised appointment, what was the description of the position as stated in the advertisement; (k) for each advertised appointment, what were the essential qualifications as listed in the advertisement with respect to (i) language proficiency, (ii) education, (iii) experience; (l) for each advertised appointment, what were the asset qualifications as listed in the advertisement with respect to (i) language proficiency, (ii) education, (iii) experience; (m) for each advertised appointment, which of the essential qualifications were met by the successful candidate; (n) for each advertised appointment, and for each essential qualification, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the successful candidate met or failed to meet the essential qualification; (o) for each advertised appointment, which of the asset qualifications were met by the successful candidate; (p) for each advertised appointment, and for each asset qualification, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the successful candidate met or failed to meet the asset qualification; (q) for each advertised appointment, which of the essential qualifications were met by each unsuccessful candidate; (r) for each advertised appointment, for each unsuccessful candidate, and for each essential qualification, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the essential qualification was met or not met; (s) for each advertised appointment, which of the asset qualifications were met by each unsuccessful candidate; (t) for each advertised appointment, for each unsuccessful candidate, and for each asset qualification, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the asset qualification was met or not met; (u) for each non-advertised appointment, who was the successful candidate; (v) for each non-advertised appointment, who were the unsuccessful candidates; (w) for each non-advertised appointment, what were the criteria according to which the candidates were evaluated by the Department; (x) for each non-advertised appointment, which of the criteria were met by the successful candidate; (y) for each non-advertised appointment, and for each criterion, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the successful candidate met or failed to meet the criterion; (z) for each non-advertised appointment, which of the criteria were met by each unsuccessful applicant; and (aa) for each non-advertised appointment, for each criterion, and for each unsuccessful candidate, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the criterion was met or not met?

Q-1024² — October 25, 2012 — — With regard to Industry Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

Q-1025² — October 25, 2012 — — With regard to the Department of Justice, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

Q-1034² — October 26, 2012 — — With regard to the changes made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the Interim Federal Health (IFH) Program: (a) what accounting was made of the impact of the IFH changes on those who would no longer be covered by the IFH Program with respect to morbidity on (i) April 25, 2012, (ii) July 18, 2012; (b) what accounting was made of the impact of the changes on those who would no longer be covered by the IFH Program with respect to mortality on (i) April 25, 2012, (ii) July 18, 2012; (c) what amount of cost-savings did the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) calculate that the changes would result in (i) on April 25, 2012, (ii) on July 18, 2012; (d) what were all of the assumptions that CIC made in arriving at the cost-savings referred to in (c)(i) and (c)(ii); (e) what information was included in the cost-benefit analysis made by CIC with respect to the changes made on April 25, 2012, including with respect to (i) monetized benefits, (ii) monetized costs, (iii) net benefits, (iv) unmonetized benefits, (v) unmonetized costs, (vi) unquantified benefits, (vii) unquantified costs, (viii) risks, (ix) uncertainties; (f) what information was included in the cost-benefit analysis made by CIC with respect to the changes made on July 18, 2012, including with respect to (i) monetized benefits, (ii) monetized costs, (iii) net benefits, (iv) unmonetized benefits, (v) unmonetized costs, (vi) unquantified benefits, (vii) unquantified costs, (viii) risks, (ix) uncertainties; (g) what has been done to (i) communicate the changes to all relevant health professionals and institutions across the country, (ii) revise the administration of the program within CIC, including any training and monitoring, (iii) revise the contract for the administration of the program; (h) what were the costs of (i) communicating the changes to all relevant health professionals across the country, (ii) revising the administration of the program within CIC, including any training and monitoring, (iii) revising the contract for the administration of the program, including any penalties or additional training or administrative costs; and (i) how will federal funding available to the provinces and territories be modified as a result of the changes, broken down by province and territory?

Q-1035² — October 29, 2012 — — With regard to federal grants and contributions, what were the amounts paid out in the Vaudreuil-Soulanges riding between April 1, 2011, and October 25, 2012, broken down by (i) the identity and address of each recipient, (ii) the start date for the funding, (iii) the end date for the funding, (iv) the amount allocated, (v) the name of the program under which the funding was allocated?

Q-1037² — October 30, 2012 — — With regard to the Public Health Agency of Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

Q-1038² — October 30, 2012 — — With regard to Status of Women Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2006, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

Q-1039² — October 30, 2012 — — With regard to the National Seniors Council, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

Q-1040² — October 30, 2012 — — With regard to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

Q-1041² — October 30, 2012 — — With regard to Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did the department award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

Q-1042² — October 30, 2012 — — With regard to the February 2012 flight path change for arrivals to Toronto Pearson International Airport (Pearson): (a) were public consultations done in anticipation of the change in flight path and, if so, (i) how many consultations took place, (ii) where did they take place, (iii) in what format, (iv) how were the affected residents made aware of the consultations, (v) were municipal, provincial and federal political representatives of the affected communities consulted; (b) has there been a change in the volume of air traffic over the riding of St. Paul’s since the flight path change was implemented, including (i) the average number of aircrafts arriving per day to Pearson over St. Paul’s before the flight path change was implemented, (ii) the average number of aircrafts arriving over St. Paul’s since the flight path change was implemented; (c) has there been a change to the average altitude of aircrafts flying over St. Paul’s since the flight path change was implemented, including (i) the average altitude of aircrafts flying over St. Paul’s before the flight path change was implemented, (ii) the average altitude of aircrafts flying over St. Paul’s since the flight path change was implemented, (iii) the median altitude of aircrafts flying over St. Paul’s before the flight path change was implemented, (iv) the median altitude of aircrafts flying over St. Paul’s since the flight path change was implemented; (d) did Nav Canada or Transport Canada look at other options for flight patterns as part of the review process leading to the flight path change and, if so, (i) were there other options over less densely populated areas, (ii) if so, why were these options not chosen; (e) what mitigation measures have Nav Canada and Transport Canada considered regarding the increased aviation noise in St. Paul’s; and (f) are there currently any plans to make changes to flight paths over St. Paul’s or initiate other mitigation measures before the next four-year review?

Q-1043² — October 30, 2012 — — With regard to funding for First Nations students in 2010 and 2011: what is the average per student funding provided by the government for First Nations students attending one of the 518 band-operated schools through the contribution agreements for those schools, not including (i) capital costs, (ii) money provided for First Nations students residing on reserve, but who attended provincial schools, (iii) funding provided through proposal-driven programs that are supplementary to the elementary and secondary education program, (iv) funding provided under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey Education Agreement and the British Columbia First Nations Education Authority?

Q-1044² — October 30, 2012 — — With regard to Canadians diagnosed with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): (a) what funding has been allocated to research this illness in the last two years; (b) how does the government propose to encourage Canadian research into ME/CFS so that the level of research into this complex, multi-system illness is commensurate with its extent and impact; (c) what is the government doing to develop strategies and programs to meet the needs of Canadians with ME/CFS; (d) how is the government ensuring that health professionals are aware of the following documents, (i) the Canadian Consensus Document for ME/CFS (ME/CFS: A Clinical Case Definition and Guidelines for Medical Practitioners), (ii) Canadian Consensus Document for Fibromyalgia (Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Clinical Case Definition and Guidelines for Medical Practitioners); (e) when will the government perform the following tasks in relation to the Consensus Document for ME/CFS posted on the Public Health Agency of Canada's website, (i) improve the location of the document on the website in order to facilitate location of this document, (ii) post the French version of this document; (f) why is the Fibromyalgia Consensus Document not posted as a Guideline on the Public Health Agency of Canada's website; (g) what steps is the government taking to ensure that health professionals, patients, and the public have access to science-based, authoritative and timely information on ME/CFS; (h) how soon will the government post other information related to ME/CFS on government websites; (i) what is the government doing to ensure access to ME/CFS knowledgeable physicians and appropriate health care on a timely basis and how are they working with the provinces, territories, professional organizations, educational institutions and other stakeholders to meet these needs; (j) how is the government working with stakeholders to deal with other needs of Canadians with ME/CFS shown by the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) including, (i) reducing the levels of unmet home care needs, (ii) reducing the levels of food insecurity, (iii) increasing the sense of community belonging experienced by Canadians with this condition; (k) how will the surveillance report on ME/CFS, prepared from analysis of data collected from the 2005 CCHS, be used to improve the situation for Canadians with ME/CFS; and (l) how will the government monitor the extent and impact of ME/CFS and these other conditions on an annual basis given that questions regarding ME/CFS, Fibromyalgia and Multiple Chemical Sensitivities were dropped from the CCHS after 2005?

Q-1045² — October 30, 2012 — — With regard to Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec programs, between 2006 and 2012: (a) what were the eligibility criteria, by (i) program, (ii) year; (b) what were the assessment criteria, by (i) program, (ii) year; (c) did the Agency use assessment grids and, if so, what were these grids, by (i) program, (ii) year; (d) how many proposals were submitted, by (i) program, (ii) year, (iii) administrative region; (e) how many proposals were rejected, by (i) program, (ii) year, (iii) administrative region; (f) how many proposals were accepted, by (i) program, (ii) year, (iii) administrative region; (g) what were the proposals that were accepted, by (i) program, (ii) year, (iii) administrative region; (h) what was the total amount for each project mentioned in (g); (i) what were the proposals that were rejected, by (i) program, (ii) year, (iii) administrative region; (j) what was the total amount for each project mentioned in (i); and (k) what were the processing times, by (i) program, (ii) year, (iii) administrative region?

Q-1046² — October 31, 2012 — — With regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) since 2005-2006, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many arrests have been made for intellectual property crime; (b) for each individual offence, how many charges have been laid for trademark infringement and other offences contained under sections 407, 408, 409, 410, and 411 of the Criminal Code; (c) how many investigations into illegal counterfeiting activities have been conducted; (d) how many investigations have resulted in the seizure of counterfeit products; (e) how many of these investigations have resulted in the seizure of counterfeit products deemed to be potentially harmful to consumers; (f) what is the estimated total value of each seizure; (g) for those seizures where the country of origin was identified by the RCMP, what is the primary source country of each seizure, broken down by percentage; (h) what is the total amount of funding allocated to the investigation and enforcement of intellectual property crime; (i) what is the total amount of funding specifically allocated to the investigation and enforcement of anti-counterfeiting measures; (j) how many police officers are specifically tasked with the investigation and enforcement of intellectual property crime; (k) how many police officers are specifically tasked with the investigation and enforcement of anti-counterfeiting measures; (l) what is the total amount of funding allocated to educating Canadians on the impact of intellectual property crime; and (m) how many directives have been issued under section 489 of the Criminal Code to the Canada Border Services Agency regarding the seizure of suspected counterfeit products at Canadian points of entry?

Q-1047² — October 31, 2012 — — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency: (a) what are the titles of the employees responsible for processing and auditing the public information returns of registered charities, broken down by average salary; (b) how many registered charities submitted public information returns from 2009 until now, broken down by year; (c) how many employees have been assigned to processing and auditing the public information returns of charitable organizations from 2009 until now, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position; (d) what is the average cost to process and audit the public information return of a registered charity; (e) how much did it cost to design and implement the Agency’s website that contains the public information returns of registered charities and includes a search function; and (f) what is the annual cost to maintain the Agency’s website that contains the public information returns of registered charities?

Q-1048² — October 31, 2012 — — With regard to labour organizations, as of October 23, 2012, how many of these organizations (including unions, groups, federations, congresses, labour councils, joint councils, assemblies, central committees and joint panels duly constituted under the authority of such an organization) are there across the country, broken down by province?

Q-1049² — November 1, 2012 — — With regard to the funding of Montreal festivals from 2006 to 2012: (a) how much was allocated to the Francofolies, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program; (b) how much was allocated to the International Jazz Festival, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program; (c) how much was allocated to Pop Montréal, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program; (d) how much was allocated to the Army of Culture, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program; (e) how much was allocated to Just for Laughs, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program; (f) how much was allocated to Rendez-vous du cinéma québécois, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program; (g) how much was allocated to Vues d’Afrique, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program; and (h) how much was allocated to Divers/Cité, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program?

Q-1050² — November 5, 2012 — — With regard to the use of limousines and other vehicles from Canada on the Prime Minister's trip to India in November 2012: (a) what was the total cost of transporting and using these vehicles, broken down by (i) vehicle, (ii) fuel, (iii) staffing/personnel, (iv) security; (b) what were the alternative arrangements offered in India; (c) what would have been the cost of using vehicles already made available in India; (d) what was the rationale for using these vehicles in India; (e) who made the recommendations on the use of the vehicles; (f) who made the final decision on the use of the vehicles; (g) was the aircraft used to transport the vehicles on contract, lease or rent, or owned by the government; (h) what was the type of aircraft used for transporting the vehicles; and (i) what were the flight times and departures for these aircraft?

Q-1051² — November 7, 2012 — — With regard to canals (waterways): (a) which canals are managed by the government; (b) how much does it cost the government to manage these canals; (c) what canal projects are being studied by the government; (d) what is the status of the canal projects being studied by the government; (e) how much funding will be allocated to the canal projects studied by the government; and (f) under which budgetary envelopes or programs does the government funding for the various canals fall?

Q-1052² — November 7, 2012 — — With regard to the project to reopen the Soulanges Canal: (a) does the government anticipate that the reopening of the Soulanges Canal will have a significant positive impact on economic development in Vaudreuil-Soulanges; (b) does the government plan to commit the funds required to update the technical, environmental and socio-economic studies linked to reopening the Soulanges Canal; and (c) does the government plan to invest the funds required to reopen the Soulanges Canal?

Q-1053² — November 15, 2012 — — With regards to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, in detail and for each year since the Act was passed: (a) how many cases have been considered by the government; (b) what are the details of these cases; (c) which cases have been rejected and why were they rejected; and (d) what actions has the minister taken and will take to ensure all those who come to Canada are held accountable for violation of the Act?

Q-1054² — November 15, 2012 — — With respect to any analysis by officials from Industry Canada and Health Canada on the impact of Patent Term Restoration (PTR) in Canada: (a) what options for implementing a PTR system in Canada have been evaluated by officials at Industry Canada and Health Canada; (b) what are the estimated impacts on the cost of drugs in Canada that would arise from the implementation of a PTR system based on that which exists in the European Union; (c) what are the estimated impacts on the cost of drugs in Canada that would arise from other options to implement a PTR system in Canada, as analysed by officials; (d) what was the detailed methodology employed to estimate the impacts on the cost of drugs in Canada of these various options; (e) which of these options is being proposed by the government in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) negotiations; (f) what is the final title of any report(s) or studies prepared by, or on behalf of, these departments concerning CETA within the last two years; (g) will the government be releasing any of these reports publicly; and (h) what were the findings of these reports regarding costs to Canadian governments or the Canadian economy of patents?

Q-1055² — November 15, 2012 — — With regard to overseas tax evasion: (a) of the 106 Canadians contained in a list of people with money in secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein, how many account holders or beneficiaries applied for the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) Voluntary Disclosure Program; and (b) what individuals or organizations have lobbied the Minister of National Revenue or CRA on matters relating to overseas tax evasion, and on whose behalf were these efforts made?

Q-1056² — November 15, 2012 — — With regard to Labour Market Opinions issued by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) how many staff are allocated to process applications, broken down by region or province; (b) how many staff are allocated to monitor compliance, broken down by region or province; (c) how many processing positions will be cut as a result of the 2012 staffing reductions, broken down by region or province; (d) how many compliance monitoring positions will be cut as a result of the 2012 staffing reductions, broken down by region or province; (e) in 2012, how many applications have there been for regular Labour Market Opinions, broken down by (i) region or province, (ii) month, (iii) positive and negative decisions; (f) in 2012, how many applications have there been for Accelerated Labour Market Opinions, broken down by (i) region or province, (ii) month, (iii) positive and negative decisions; (g) between 2006 and 2012-to-date, what percentage of companies applying for a regular Labour Market Opinion have been monitored for compliance, broken down by (i) region or province, (ii) year; (h) what percentage of companies applying for an Accelerated Labour Market Opinion have been monitored for compliance in 2012, broken down by (i) region or province, (ii) month; (i) between 2006 and 2012-to-date, how many companies have been found to be in non-compliance with the terms of their Labour Market Opinion; (j) what is the formula or methodology used for determining prevailing wage; (k) what changes have been made to the formula or methodology for determining prevailing wage over the last ten years; and (l) who were the participants in the Labour Advisory Group, what was its mandate, and what changes were made to its mandate over the course of its work?

Q-1057² — November 15, 2012 — — With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) what programs, grants and funding sources are available for authors, editors, or other content producers who have written, are writing, or are planning to write any kind of written material, such as books or magazines, broken down by (i) the eligibility requirements, (ii) the amount of funding available; and (b) how many people have received funding over the past five years, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the type of funding available, (iii) the program under which the funding was received, (iv) the project for which the funding was received?

Q-1058² — November 19, 2012 — — With regard to government advertising, since 2005-2006, broken down by fiscal year and by department: (a) how much was spent in total; (b) how much was spent on (i) print advertising, (ii) radio advertising, (iii) television advertising, (iv) internet advertising, (v) indoor sign advertising, (vi) outdoor sign advertising; (c) how much was spent on domestic advertising; (d) how much was spent on advertising abroad, and in which countries; (e) how much was spent on the development of advertising content; (f) how much was paid to private firms for the development of advertising content; and (g) which private advertising firms received government contracts, and for what amount?

Q-1059² — November 19, 2012 — — With regard to tickets for sporting events, between 2006 and 2012, sorted by year: (a) how much was spent on National Hockey League tickets; (b) how much was spent on Canadian Football League tickets; (c) how much was spent on Major League Baseball tickets; (d) how much was spent on National Basketball Association tickets; and (e) how much was spent on Major League Soccer tickets?

Q-1060² — November 19, 2012 — — With regard to enforcing the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, from 2006 to 2012, for cases submitted and examined by the Minister of Justice: (a) what cases were recommended to him and retained, and why; and (b) what cases were recommended to him and not retained, and why?

Q-1061² — November 19, 2012 — — With regard to people convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity: (a) how many people convicted of war crimes have we identified in Canada and, among these, how many are Canadian citizens, broken down by province; (b) how many people convicted of crimes against humanity have we identified in Canada and, among these, how many are Canadian citizens, broken down by province; and (c) for foreign nationals, in the case of people convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity, how long have they been in Canada and why are they still in Canada?

Q-1062² — November 20, 2012 — — With respect to the Department of National Defence: (a) how many complaints of racial discrimination were filed each year between 2000 and 2011; (b) how many complaints originated in each province or territory; (c) what was the location where the alleged racial discrimination took place; (d) how many complaints involved (i) military personnel, (ii) civilian personnel; (e) how many complaints were (i) investigated, (ii) found to be valid, (iii) resulted in discipline; and (f) what is the file number and date of each complaint?

Q-1063² — November 20, 2012 — — With respect to funding announcements regarding veterans: (a) how much of the $300,000 announced on August 7, 2006, for renovations to the Robert L. Knowles Veterans’ Unit at the Villa Chaleur Nursing Home in Bathurst, New Brunswick, was spent, and what was the breakdown of that amount; (b) how much of the $10,000,000 in funding announced in Budget 2007 to establish five new Operational Stress Injury (OSI) Clinics across Canada has been spent, broken down by OSI Clinic; (c) how much of the $1,500,000 announced on June 25, 2007, to establish a new OSI Clinic in Fredericton was spent, and what was the breakdown of that amount; (d) since the announcement of $850,000 in increased funding for the Calgary Carewest OSI Clinic in 2007, what has been the Clinic’s annual budget for each fiscal year to present date; (e) how much of the possible $18,500,000 payable to Right Management over four years under its national contract for the Job Placement Program announced on October 25, 2007, has been spent, broken down by amount spent annually; (f) since the announcement of $1,400,000 in increased funding for the Quebec OSI Clinic on November 16, 2007, what has been the Clinic’s annual budget for each fiscal year to present date; (g) how much of the possible $20,000,000 payable to CanVet VR Services over three years to provide the vocational components of Veterans Affairs Canada’s broader Rehabilitation Program announced on May 21, 2009, has been spent, broken down by amount spent annually; (h) how much of the $114,500,000 earmarked to compensate Agent Orange victims has been spent, broken down by amount spent annually; and (i) how much of the $2,000,000,000 announced on September 19, 2010, “to ensure that veterans who have been seriously injured in the service of Canada have access to the support they deserve” has been spent, broken down by both the amount spent annually and the project/initiative under which the money was spent?

Q-1064² — November 20, 2012 — — With regard to the Competition Bureau: (a) how many investigations have been launched since 2006, sorted by (i) year, (ii) economic sector of the companies under investigation; (b) how many indictments have been brought since 2006, sorted by year; (c) how many investigations have not resulted in indictments since 2006, sorted by year; (d) how many Bureau staff have been assigned to investigations since 2006, sorted by year; (e) how many interim injunctions have been issued since 2006, sorted by year; (f) how many convictions have resulted from Bureau investigations since 2006, sorted by year; (g) how many fines have been collected since 2006, sorted by year; (h) what measures have been implemented as part of the Anti-Bid-Rigging Program since 2006; (i) what has been the total number of Bureau employees since 2006, sorted by year; (j) how many employees have been assigned to the Anti-Bid-Rigging Program since 2006, sorted by year; and (k) when are the Bureau’s 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 annual reports expected to be published?

Q-1065² — November 20, 2012 — — With regard to Environment Canada’s Habitat Stewardship Program: (a) what are the names, places and provinces of origin of the organizations that received funding in each year since the 2006-2007 fiscal year; (b) what were the funding amounts for this program in each year since the 2006–2007 fiscal year; and (c) what were the (i) expired, (ii) transferred, (iii) unused funding amounts in each year since 2006-2007?

Q-1066² — November 21, 2012 — — With regard to Canadian Forces Base 9 Wing Gander: (a) what is the current status, including start dates (both planned and actual), for exactly what work, to be completed by what date, and for exactly what purpose, of (i) Building 86, (ii) the construction of a new headquarters, (iii) the new building for 91 Construction Engineering Flight, (iv) the new Logistics building, and (v) all other construction, renovation, or infrastructure improvement projects at the base; (b) what expenditures in (a) have been (i) budgeted, (ii) spent, and (iii) anticipated; and (c) what facilities, buildings, or infrastructure on the base are not the subject of any construction, renovation, or infrastructure improvement projects?

Q-1067² — November 21, 2012 — — With regard to all buildings containing asbestos which are owned, leased or controlled by the government: (a) what steps has the government taken to eliminate asbestos-related hazards; (b) has the government developed a list identifying all public buildings falling under its responsibility which contain Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) and (i) if so, what is the address of each such building, (ii) when will the list be made available to the public, (iii) if not, is the government planning on creating such a list and if so, when would it be made available to the public; and (c) is the government working with any provinces or territories to compile a National Asbestos Registry that will inform Canadians which buildings use ACMs and, if so, with which provinces or territories has the government been liaising?

Q-1068² — November 21, 2012 — — With regard to the refocusing of the National Research Council (NRC) mandate: (a) what was the rationale for the refocusing on business-led, industry-relevant research; (b) what constitutes a refocusing on business-led, industry-relevant research; (c) when was the change first proposed, and by whom; (d) what consultations took place regarding this change and who was consulted; (e) what programs and employee positions will be eliminated, or be at risk of being eliminated, as a result of this change; (f) what programs and employee positions will be restructured with greater focus towards business-led, industry-relevant research; (g) how many scientific positions currently exist within the NRC and how many will exist after the restructuring; (h) what was the overhead time spent by employees at the NRC for the past five years; and (i) what funding supports will be in place for non-oriented research and development once the focusing of the mandate is complete?

Q-1069² — November 21, 2012 — — With regard to defibrillators, within each department, agency and crown corporation of the government: (a) how many units are currently installed and ready for use; (b) how much did each unit cost; (c) who was the supplier for each unit; (d) where exactly is each unit located; (e) how many units are at each location; (f) how many employees at each location are trained to use them; (g) what regulations or policies govern their installation and use in federal facilities and in federally regulated industries; (h) are there any federal rules requiring the installation of defibrillators in airports, Canada Post outlets and RCMP detachments and vehicles; (i) what programs provide incentives and information to encourage their installation and use; (j) are any such programs planned in the future; (k) according to Health Canada, what impact do defibrillators have; and (l) what cost-benefit studies have been done on the installation and use of defibrillators, and what were their results?

Q-1070² — November 22, 2012 — — What is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency of Drummond in the fiscal years from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011, and from April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2012, inclusively, specifying each department or agency, initiative or program, year and amount?

Q-1071² — November 22, 2012 — — With regard to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, given that it has been due for revision since April 2012: (a) when is the government planning to carry out the review; (b) how will the government carry it out; and (c) will the government increase awareness of this Act and, if yes, how?

Q-1072² — November 26, 2012 — — With regard to the proposed changes to the list of waterways protected by the Navigable Waters Protection Act as described in Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012: (a) which organizations were consulted in the development of this list; (b) when and where were the consultations referred to in (a) held; (c) which provincial or municipal governments were consulted during the development of this list; (d) when and where were the consultations referred to in (c) held; and (e) what are the job titles of the public servants who prepared this list?

Q-1073² — November 26, 2012 — — With regards to the fishery: (a) have any species of fish been placed on moratorium since 1992 and, if so, (i) what species, (ii) when was the moratorium placed for each of these species, (iii) what was the rationale behind each of these moratoriums; (b) are there any plans to change the regulations regarding by catch and discards, (i) have any reviews or studies been conducted concerning this issue and, if so, (ii) what are the names of these reviews or studies, (iii) when did these reviews or studies take place, (iv) what are the file numbers of these reviews or studies; (c) are there any plans to ensure that healthy biomass levels of the various species being harvested by fishers are maintained, (i) how many total Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) employees monitored the health of commercial species in each calendar year from 2000 until 2012, (ii) what process does DFO use to consult fishers when determining quotas for each species, (iii) are there any plans to ensure that adequate scientific work will be carried out annually to ensure that all factors are responsibly addressed when quotas are being set; (d) are there any plans to change the regulations regarding the distribution of the uncaught cod quota and, if so, (i) are there any plans to allow fish processing companies to acquire any uncaught cod quota, (ii) what is the rationale behind these plans, (iii) are there any safeguards in place to ensure that the processors offer competitive prices to independent fishers, (iv) are there any plans to put in place safeguards to ensure that the processors offer competitive prices to independent fishers; (e) what are the quotas or regulations concerning the by catch of scallops that are allowed to fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador, broken down by region, (i) what is the rationale behind these quotas or regulations; (f) what are the regulations regarding the areas which fishers are allowed to fish scallops and what is the rationale behind these regulations; (g) have any private companies been granted exclusive rights to scallops in certain areas and, if so, what is the rationale behind the granting of these exclusive rights; (h) what are the quotas or regulations concerning the by catch of halibut that is allowed to fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador and what is the rationale behind these quotas or regulations; (i) what are the quotas or regulations concerning the by catch of halibut that is allowed to fishers in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and what is the rationale behind these quotas or regulations; (j) what are the regulations regarding the amount of species that are allowed to be fished by a fisher at a time, (i) what species are not allowed to be fished, (ii) what species are subject to regulations which limit the amount of by catch that a fisher can acquire; (k) have any reviews or studies been conducted concerning the overfishing of certain species and, if so, (i) what are the names of these reviews or studies, (ii) when did these reviews or studies take place, (iii) what are the file numbers of these reviews or studies; (l) are there any plans to change the regulations concerning the fishing of a directed species and has DFO considered multi-species fishing?

Q-1074² — November 26, 2012 — — With regard to the Minister of Public Safety’s decision to terminate the contracts of part-time prison chaplains in federal penitentiaries: (a) did the Minister consult with officials from Correctional Services Canada (CSC) and, if so, did CSC express support for these cuts; (b) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Alberta and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Alberta, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Alberta support the cuts; (c) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in British Columbia and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in British Columbia, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in British Columbia support the cuts; (d) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Nova Scotia and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Nova Scotia, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Nova Scotia support the cuts; (e) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in New Brunswick and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in New Brunswick, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in new Brunswick support the cuts; (f) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Quebec and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Quebec, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Quebec support the cuts; (g) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Ontario and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Ontario, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Ontario support the cuts; (h) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Saskatchewan and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Saskatchewan, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Saskatchewan support the cuts; (i) did the Minister consult with corrections officials in Manitoba and, if so, (i) which specific prison officials did the government consult with and from which specific institutions in Manitoba, (ii) did corrections officials from institutions in Manitoba support the cuts; (j) did the Minister consult with members or leaders from any Canadian non-Christian religious groups and, if so, (i) what specific religious groups were consulted, (ii) did any of these groups support the decision to terminate the contracts of part-time prison chaplains, (iii) which specific groups objected and on what grounds; (k) did the government consult with any non-profit organizations or any other non-governmental organizations and, if so, (i) what specific non-profit or non-governmental organizations were consulted, (ii) did any of these groups support the decision to terminate the contracts of part-time prison chaplains, (iii) which specific organizations objected and on what grounds; (l) what is the national statistical breakdown of the federal prison population according to religious affiliation; (m) what is the statistical breakdown of the federal prison population according to religious affiliation in (i) Nova Scotia, (ii) New Brunswick, (iii) Quebec, (iv) Ontario, (v) Alberta, (vi) Saskatchewan, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) British Columbia; (n) how many federal prison inmates requested religious counsel from a clergy-person of their own faith in 2011, (i) with which faith group did the inmates who made these requests identify, (ii) for these inmates, were such clergy represented in the population of CSC full time-chaplains, (iii) for these inmates, were such clergy represented in the population of CSC part-time chaplains; (o) to which faith groups did the terminated chaplains identify; (p) how does the government define the concept of spiritual guidance and what training or credentials will be required of CSC-employed chaplains to provide such guidance to federal prison inmates who are not of the same faith group; (q) with whom has the Minister consulted to ensure that terminating the contracts of part-time federal prison chaplains will not disparately impact minority-faith Canadians; (r) has the Minister taken any steps to ensure that the cuts will not be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge pursuant to either Sections 2 or 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and (s) has the Minister consulted with the Minister of Justice in regard to the constitutionality of these cuts and has the Minister of Justice confirmed that they are constitutionally sound?

Q-1075² — November 26, 2012 — — With regard to Canada’s support for energy as a natural resource: (a) what is the estimated total amount spent annually from 2006 to present, on every program expenditure in support of energy investment, development, production and efficiency for each of the following renewable and non-renewable energy sources: (i) solar energy; (ii) wind energy; (iii) geothermal energy; (iv) hydropower; (v) ethanol; (vi) ocean energy; (vii) biomass; (viii) biofuel; (ix) fossil fuels, including oil, gas and coal; (x) nuclear energy; (b) what is the estimated total amount spent annually from 2006 to present on every tax expenditure in support of energy investment, development, production and efficiency for each of the following renewable and non-renewable energy sources: (i) solar energy; (ii) wind energy; (iii) geothermal energy; (iv) hydropower; (v) ethanol; (vi) ocean energy; (vii) biomass; viii) biofuel; (ix) fossil fuels, including oil, gas and coal; (x) nuclear energy; and (c) what new funding has been announced in support of these energy sources since 2006?

Q-1076² — November 27, 2012 — — With regard to the Task Force for the Payments System Review, since 2010-2011 and broken down by fiscal year, how much funding has been spent by (i) the task force, (ii) government departments, to aid and promote the task force?

Q-1077² — November 27, 2012 — — With regard to government websites, what was the cost of (i) designing, (ii) implementing, (iii) promoting: (a) www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/www.canadiensensante.gc.ca; and (b) the 2012 redesign of travel.gc.ca/voyage.gc.ca?

Q-1078² — November 27, 2012 — — With regard to appointments within the Department of Justice between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011: (a) how many people were appointed; (b) to what position was each person appointed; (c) for each appointment, who was the delegated or sub-delegated official responsible for making the appointment; (d) on the basis of what criteria did the Department determine whether to implement an advertised or non-advertised appointment process; (e) for each appointment, which of the criteria in (d) were met or not met; (f) for which of the appointments was an advertised appointment process implemented; (g) for each advertised appointment, in what media outlets was the appointment advertised; (h) on what dates were each of the advertisements in (g) posted in each media outlet; (i) for each advertised appointment, what was the title of the position as stated in the advertisement; (j) for each advertised appointment, what was the description of the position as stated in the advertisement; (k) for each advertised appointment, what were the essential qualifications as listed in the advertisement with respect to (i) language proficiency, (ii) education, (iii) experience; (l) for each advertised appointment, what were the asset qualifications as listed in the advertisement with respect to (i) language proficiency, (ii) education, (iii) experience; (m) for each advertised appointment, which of the essential qualifications were met by the successful candidate; (n) for each advertised appointment, and for each essential qualification, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the successful candidate met or failed to meet the essential qualification; (o) for each advertised appointment, which of the asset qualifications were met by the successful candidate; (p) for each advertised appointment, and for each asset qualification, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the successful candidate met or failed to meet the asset qualification; (q) for each advertised appointment, which of the essential qualifications were met by each unsuccessful candidate; (r) for each advertised appointment, for each unsuccessful candidate, and for each essential qualification, on the basis of what documents did the Department of Justice determine that the essential qualification was met or not met; (s) for each advertised appointment, which of the asset qualifications were met by each unsuccessful candidate; (t) for each advertised appointment, for each unsuccessful candidate, and for each asset qualification, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the asset qualification was met or not met; (u) for each non-advertised appointment, who was the successful candidate; (v) for each non-advertised appointment, who were the unsuccessful candidates; (w) for each non-advertised appointment, what were the criteria according to which the candidates were evaluated by the Department; (x) for each non-advertised appointment, which of the criteria were met by the successful candidate; (y) for each non-advertised appointment, and for each criterion, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the successful candidate met or failed to meet the criterion; (z) for each non-advertised appointment, which of the criteria were met by each unsuccessful applicant; and (aa) for each non-advertised appointment, for each criterion, and for each unsuccessful candidate, on the basis of what documents did the Department determine that the criterion was met or not met?

Q-1079² — November 28, 2012 — — With regard to the Automotive Innovation Fund expiring in 2013, have the Minister of Industry and Minister of Finance considered: (a) extending the Automotive Innovation Fund past the current 2013 deadline; and (b) renewing the program for another five-year period?

Q-1080² — November 28, 2012 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans authorize the killing of fish for reasons other than fishing since May 2, 2011, and, if so, (i) on what dates, (ii) in which locations, (iii) for which reasons, (iv) which company, organization or individual requested the authorization, (v) what was the number and species of fish killed or projected to be killed due to the authorization?

Q-1081² — November 28, 2012 — — With regard to visa applications and their disposition: (a) how many (i) student, (ii) visitor, (iii) permanent resident visas have been refused for each of the last seven years; (b) for each of the categories listed in (a), how many of these refusals have been taken to the Federal Court, for each of the last seven years; and (c) what have been the results of the court actions, by category and year?

Q-1082² — November 28, 2012 — — With respect to the appointment of judges to the Federal Courts, Superior Courts and similarly situated tribunals within the sphere of the federal power to appoint judges and members, between 2006 and 2012: (a) how is the language competence of candidates assessed; (b) how many unilingual Anglophone candidates were recommended by the Judicial Advisory Committee to the Justice Minister, (i) how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to the Federal Courts, (ii) in what years; (c) how many unilingual Anglophone candidates were recommended by each of the Judicial Advisory Committees in each one of the provinces and territories for appointed to the superior courts of various provinces and how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to superior courts, broken down by province and year; (d) how many unilingual Francophone candidates were recommended by the Judicial Advisory Committee to the Justice Minister, (i) how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to the Federal Courts, (ii) in what years; (e) how many unilingual Francophone candidates were recommended by each of the Judicial Advisory Committees in each one of the provinces and territories for appointment to the superior courts of various provinces and how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to superior courts, broken down by province and year; (f) how many bilingual candidates were recommended by the Judicial Advisory Committee to the federal Justice Minister and how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to the Federal Courts, broken down by year; (g) how many bilingual candidates were recommended by each of the Judicial Advisory Committees in each one of the provinces and territories for appointment to the superior courts of various provinces and how many of them were later recommended by the Minister for appointment to superior courts, broken down by province and year; (h) how many unilingual Anglophone candidates were considered for appointment to each of the federally-appointed tribunals, (i) how many of them were appointed, (ii) to what tribunals, (iii) in what years; (i) how many unilingual Francophone candidates were considered for appointment to each of the federally-appointed tribunals, (i) how many of them were appointed, (ii) to what tribunals, (iii) in what years; (j) how many bilingual candidates were considered for appointment to each of the federally-appointed tribunals, (i) how many of them were appointed, (ii) to what tribunals, (iii) in what years; (k) during this process, how high did the candidate’s competence in both official languages rank among the criteria considered by the Minister; (l) has the government put in place a process by which the language needs on the bench can be identified; (m) how are those needs addressed in the judicial appointment process; (n) how are the language needs assessed at the superior court level; (o) how are they addressed in the judicial appointment process; (p) for each judge listed, broken down by Anglophone, Francophone and bilingual judges, and by year, how many cases have been referred, heard and decided; (q) what is being done to ensure even case loads between Anglophone and Francophone judges; and (r) by what means, how often and by whom or which bodies is the case load difference between Anglophone and Francophone judges reviewed?

Q-1083² — November 28, 2012 — — With regard to the national Do Not Call List (national DNCL), since 2008-2009, broken down by fiscal year: (a) what is the total amount of funding allocated to the implementation and enforcement of the national DNCL; (b) how many persons have registered their phone or fax number on the national DNCL; (c) how many complaints about a telemarketing call have been filed with the CRTC; (d) how many complaints about a telemarketing fax have been filed with the CRTC; (e) how many telemarketing call complaints have resulted in further investigation; (f) how many telemarketing fax complaints have resulted in further investigation; (g) how many telemarketing call complaints have been found to be in violation of the national DNCL; (h) how many telemarketing fax complaints have been found to be in violation of the national DNCL; (i) how many fines have been levied, and for what amount, for telemarketing call violations of the national DNCL; and (j) how many fines have been levied, and for what amount, for telemarketing fax violations of the national DNCL?

Q-1084² — November 28, 2012 — — With regard to the Budget 2012 commitment to “repeal regulations related to container standards” on various foods: (a) what market impact studies were completed at the time of this commitment and what were those projected impacts; (b) what were the projected impacts on consumers from this commitment; (c) what were the projected impacts on farmers from this commitments; (d) what were the projected impacts on Canadian food processers affected by this commitment; (e) how many hours have been spent, broken down by month, since January 1, 2011, tracking down container standard size violations in (i) baby food packaging, (ii) pre-packaged meat packaging, (iii) honey packaging, (iv) maple syrup packaging, (v) fruits and vegetable packaging; and (f) what has been the cost to the government, broken down by month since January 1, 2011, of tracking down container standard size violations in (i) baby food packaging, (ii) pre-packaged meat packaging, (iii) honey packaging, (iv) maple syrup packaging, (v) fruits and vegetable packaging?

Q-1085² — November 29, 2012 — — With regard to the National Research Council (NRC) and its short-term goal for 2012 of transitioning to a program management model, as of November 30, 2012: (a) what programs have reached the final phase of the program approval process; (b) what are the names and brief descriptions of these approved programs; (c) what is the total number of research staff working on each of these approved programs; (d) what is the total number of full-time equivalent research staff working on each of these approved programs; (e) what is the total number of full-time research staff working under the NRC; (f) what is the total number of full-time equivalent research staff working under the NRC; (g) what is the number of full-time research staff whose time has not yet been completely assigned to one or more approved programs; (h) what is the explanation for any full-time research staff still waiting to get to work at a full-time equivalency on approved programs; (i) for research staff whose time is not yet completely assigned to approved programs, how is it being decided what they will work on when they are not working on approved programs, and to what internal account is their time being billed; (j) what project reports are being filed on that interim research work; (k) since April 1, 2012, what concerns has the Minister of State for Science and Technology expressed to NRC management with regard to NRC’s transition to a program management model; and (l) since April 1, 2012, what directions has the Minister of State for Science and Technology given to NRC management with regard to itss transition to a program management model?

Q-1086² — December 3, 2012 — — With regard to government advertising: since 2006, how much has been spent on billboards, advertising and other information campaigns, broken down by (i) date released, (ii) cost, (iii) topic, (iv) medium, including publication or media outlet and type of media used, (v) purpose, (vi) duration of the campaign, (vii) targeted audience, (viii) estimated audience, (ix) any analysis of the effectiveness of the advertisement or campaign?

Q-1087² — December 3, 2012 — — With regard to asbestos between the period of November 1, 2006, and November 30, 2012: (a) how many tonnes of asbestos have been exported, broken down annually, from Canada; (b) for the answer to part (a), broken down annually and by the amount of tonnes, what are the names of the (i) vendors selling asbestos from Canada, (ii) exporters of asbestos from Canada, (iii) shippers of asbestos from Canada; (c) for the answer to part (a), broken down annually and by the amount of tonnes, what are the names of (i) each country into which asbestos exported from Canada entered, (ii) each organization that purchased the asbestos from Canada; (d) how many tonnes of asbestos have been purchased by domestic Canadian companies, broken down annually; (e) for the answer to part (d), how many tonnes of asbestos purchased by domestic Canadian companies have been exported from Canada, broken down annually; (f) how much has been spent by the government to remove and dispose of asbestos from (i) the Sir John A. MacDonald Building, (ii) the West Block, (iii) the Wellington Building, (iv) all buildings within the Parliamentary Precinct; (g) what are the health risks of asbestos, according to Health Canada; (h) how many Canadians have died due to complications caused by exposure to asbestos; (i) what programs has the government implemented to prevent exposure to asbestos and to mitigate adverse health effects among workers and citizens of countries to which Canada exports asbestos; (j) how much money has the government spent to support developing countries in training and protecting their workers and citizens from exposure to asbestos that Canada has exported; and (k) what measures has the government taken to actively encourage other Member States to support the addition of chrysotile asbestos fibers to the Rotterdam Convention?

Q-1088² — December 3, 2012 — — With respect to judicial appointments made by the Minister of Justice: (a) by what process is each applicant reviewed; (b) which criteria are applied; (c) who is responsible for the review of each application; (d) who is responsible for the selection of individuals to conduct reviews of each application; (e) at what stages of the process and in what ways are the following factors considered: (i) gender, (ii) visible minority status, (iii) national or ethnic origin, (iv) race, (v) religion, (vi) sexual orientation, (vii) disability, (viii) parental status, (ix) marital status, (x) First Nations status, (xi) aboriginal status; (f) broken down by court and year from 2000-present, how many juridical appointments were made; (g) of appointments in (f), what is the breakdown by factor listed in (e); (h) for judicial appointments in (f), how many applicants were (i) considered for each position, (ii) recommended, (iii) considered “highly qualified”, (iv) considered “qualified”, (v) considered “not qualified”; (i) for (h)(i), (h)(ii), (h)(iii), (h)(iv) and (h)(v), what is the breakdown by factors in (e); (j) in what ways, when, and by whom is information relative to the factors in (e), (i) obtained or evaluated during the application process, (ii) reviewed and assessed during the consideration of appointments; (k) in what ways are the factors in (e) tracked and reported upon and to whom; (l) in what ways, by what metrics, and by whom, is judicial diversity measured on the bench and how often, to whom and by whom is the information reported; (m) what measures is the (i) Department of Justice, (ii) Minister of Justice taking to ensure the diversity of judicial appointments and a diverse applicant pool for each judicial vacancy; (n) what reviews of diversity among judicial appointments are currently underway; (o) what steps is the Department taking to ensure that diversity is considered throughout the appointments process; (p) by what metrics does the Department measure the diversity of applicants and appointments for judicial vacancies; (q) who is responsible for ensuring diversity of judicial appointments; (r) what measures are being undertaken by the individuals or agencies in (q); (s) in what ways, how often, and to whom do the individuals in (r) report on the issue of judicial diversity; (t) in what types of consultations and with which groups has the Minister of Justice engaged, with respect to diversity of judicial appointments; (u) by what protocol are applicants for judicial vacancies evaluated for each court within the Federal appointment power; (v) when were the protocols in (u) established and by whom; (w) in what ways is diversity a consideration in the protocols in (u); (x) are statistics kept with respect to diversity of appointments already made; (y) with respect to applicants for judicial appointments, how is diversity information collected, by whom, and at what stages of the process; (z) what is the role of the Canadian Judicial Council with respect to ensuring diversity of Canadian courts; (aa) what is the role of the Federal Commissioner for Judicial Affairs with respect to ensuring diversity of judicial appointments; (bb) what statistics are kept by the Canadian Judicial Council and the Federal Commissioner for Judicial Affairs with respect to diversity on the judiciary; and (cc) does the government have any goals with respect to (i) diversity of applicants, (ii) diversity of appointments and, if so, what are they, by whom were they established, and by what mechanisms are they ensured?

Q-1089² — December 3, 2012 — — With regard to the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations, P.C. 2012-942 (June 28, 2012), pursuant to subsection 36(5) and paragraphs 43(g.1), (g.2) and (h) of the Fisheries Act and with regard to all governmental departments: (a) has the government already identified the wastewater systems that present a high, medium or low environmental risk and, if so, (i) which wastewater systems have been identified in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, (ii) in which municipalities are they located; (b) does the government have a financial assistance plan to help small municipalities comply with the new regulatory system and, if so, (i) what are the details of the financial assistance plan for communities that must upgrade their system, (ii) what is the proposed timeline for municipalities that want to apply for government financial assistance to upgrade their wastewater system; (c) have towns and cities been informed of changes to government standards for wastewater treatment and, if so, how were they informed and, if not, when will they be informed; (d) what, if any, scientific reports or research on water sanitation in the Saguenay Fjord or the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park have been released since 2007, when the State of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Report was published; (e) what, if any, studies have been done on the effects and impacts of wastewater discharge in the Saguenay Fjord; and (f) have any measures been taken by a government department or agency to help municipalities within the coordination zone of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park receive priority when a program to fund wastewater treatment is introduced and, if so, what are the details of these measures?

Q-1090² — December 4, 2012 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development: (a) what grants have been awarded in the federal riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue in the last 10 years; (b) what projects have been funded or undertaken in the federal riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue in the last 10 years; and (c) what were the organizations, amounts allocated and type of project?

Q-1091² — December 4, 2012 — — With regard to the various federal departments maintaining offices and services in the constituency of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, what are their detailed operating budgets, by department and service, for the years 2006 to 2012?

Q-1092² — December 4, 2012 — — With regard to drug safety in Canada and the protection of Canadians’ health: (a) for each of the recommendations in the Auditor General’s 2011 fall report, Chapter 4, Regulating Pharmaceutical Drugs—Health Canada, what are the actions taken to date, and specifically, which of these actions (i) has yet to begin, (ii) is in progress, (iii) is completed; (b) for drugs produced in off-shore factories, how does Health Canada monitor safety, (i) how many inspections has it undertaken since 2006, and (ii) for each identified inspection, what was the reason for investigating, and what were the results; (c) what are all the positive and negative impacts of the “user-fee” model, by which drug companies pay to submit a drug for approval, and what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to consider alternative models, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (d) will Health Canada make registering clinical trials for drugs mandatory, and if so, when; (e) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to examine whether the pharmaceutical industry suppresses negative clinical trial results, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (f) what, if any, research or investment has been given to having Health Canada provide information regarding clinical trials, including, but not limited to, information confirming safety and efficacy, the number of people in the trials, and the number of people who drop out due to bad side effects, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (g) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to identify new drugs for consumers, as in the United Kingdom, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (h) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to adopt plain language labelling, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (i) will Health Canada be undertaking plain language labelling and, if so, when; (j) what specific post-market monitoring of drugs does Health Canada undertake itself, (i) how many drugs have been approved since 2006, (ii) how many of these were later given safety warnings, (iii) how many of these were later removed from market, (iv) for each drug given a warning or a removal, did it follow a warning or removal by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), (v) did Health Canada ever issue a warning or removal before the EMA/FDA; (k) what specific post-market monitoring of drugs that have had a 180-day priority review does Health Canada undertake itself, (i) how many drugs have been approved since 2006, (ii) how many were later given safety warnings, (iii) how many of these were later removed from market, (iv) for each drug given a warning or a removal, did it follow a warning or removal by the EMA or the FDA, (v) did Health Canada ever issue a warning or removal before the EMA/FDA; (l) when will Health Canada offer a list of drugs that received fast-track approval, and why fast-tracking took place, (ii) what other variables might Health Canada consider making available to increase transparency regarding priority-review drugs; (m) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to develop an independent drug-monitoring agency with the power to remove unsafe drugs from the market, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (n) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to provide plainly worded risk warnings, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) and if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (o) will Health Canada be undertaking plainly-worded risk warnings, and if so, when; (p) how many Canadians die each year of prescription drugs in Canada, (i) what is the most recent data Health Canada has regarding these deaths, (ii) what specific action has Health Canada taken to reduce these numbers, (iii) what data does Health Canada or the Canadian Institutes for Health Research have regarding how these data are expected or predicted to change in the future; (q) what action has been taken to address each of the 59 recommendations of the coroner’s jury in the inquiry into Ms. Vanessa Young's death, what action has been taken to address each of the 16 recommendations of the coroner’s jury in the inquiry into Ms. Sara Carlin's death, and for each recommendation, (i) is the recommendation being acted upon, in progress, or completed, (ii) if it is not being acted upon, why; (r) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to making “related to a drug prescribed” a category of death, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (s) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to determine what percentage of adverse reactions are never reported, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (t) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to make reporting adverse effects of drugs mandatory for doctors, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) and if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (u) what, if any, research, or investment has been undertaken to make reporting adverse effects of drugs mandatory for pharmacists, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (v) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to make reporting adverse effects of drugs mandatory for all healthcare professionals, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (w) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to make public adverse effects reports from companies, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (x) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to make Health Canada’s on-line, adverse-reactions-to-drugs database more navigable and user-friendly, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; (y) when will Health Canada offer a full list of every warning given for a specific drug; (z) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to make Health Canada’s website more user-friendly and transparent, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) and if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when; and (aa) what, if any, research or investment has been undertaken to give Health Canada the authority to unilaterally revise a label or remove a drug from market, (i) what are the dates, results and recommendations of any research, (ii) the dollar amount of any investment, (iii) if results and recommendations are available, will Health Canada be acting upon them and when?

Q-1093² — December 4, 2012 — — With regard to demographic information about judicial appointments for each of the last 10 years, what is the: (a) total number of judicial appointments made, by year; (b) total number of judicial appointments for each year by (i) court, (ii) province; (c) total number of judicial appointments of women, and number by year; (d) number of judicial appointments of women by (i) court, (ii) province; (e) total number of judicial appointments of visible minorities, and number by year; (f) number of judicial appointments of visible minorities by (i) court, (ii) province; (g) total number of judicial appointments of First Nations, Inuit or Metis, and number by year; (h) number of judicial appointments of First Nations, Inuit or Metis by (i) court, (ii) province; (i) number of applications made by visible minorities by (i) court, (ii) province; and (j) number of applications made by women by (i) court, (ii) province?

Q-1094² — December 4, 2012 — — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI), for each of the past seven fiscal years as well as the year-to-date: (a) what was Service Canada's overall budget for EI; (b) what was Service Canada's budget for processing EI applications; (c) what was Service Canada's budget for EI call centres; (d) what was Service Canada's budget for reviewing EI appeals before they reached a hearing; (e) what was Service Canada's budget for investigating fraud; (f) how many staff did Service Canada allocate to EI overall; (g) how many staff did Service Canada allocate to processing EI applications; (h) how many staff did Service Canada allocate to EI call centres; (i) how many staff did Service Canada allocate to reviewing EI appeals before they reached a hearing; (j) how many staff did Service Canada allocate to investigating fraud; and (k) how many members of the Board of Referees were there, broken down by region and position?

Q-1095² — December 4, 2012 — — With regard to the Review of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) that was announced in November 2012: (a) which department is the lead for the review and which departments are involved; (b) what are the Terms of Reference for the Review; (c) what is the scope of the Review; (d) who is the lead conducting the Review, including, (i) their name, (ii) their position and department or organization, (iii) their duties in relation to the Terms of Reference for the Review, (iv) any other responsibilities or duties they may have with respect to the Review; (e) how was it determined which department would be the lead in the Review; (f) when did the Review begin; (g) what are the titles of any reports or studies being used to conduct the Review and who are the authors; (h) for any consultations that are part of the Review, what third party groups and stakeholders are being consulted as part of the Review, broken down by employers and employer groups representatives, labour unions and employee representative groups, non-profit groups, provinces and territories, and other groups; (i) when and how will consultations happen; (j) when are the results of the Review expected; (k) will the results of the Review be made publically available and, if so, when and how; (l) what are the findings of the Review to date; (m) with respect to the cost of the Review, (i) what is the cost of the Review, (ii) which departments are allocating resources toward the Review, (iii) what is each department allocating to the Review, including staff resources; (n) what concerns were identified within Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) and Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) that led to the Review; (o) when did HRSDC first become aware of the concerns that led to the Review; (p) when did CIC first become aware of the concerns that led to the Review; (q) what specific concerns does HRSDC have about HD Mining Ltd following the rules under the TFWP and when did CIC first become aware of these concerns; (r) what specific concerns does CIC have about HD Mining Ltd following the rules under the TFWP and when did CIC first become aware of these concerns; (s) what communications has HRSDC or CIC had with the Government of British Columbia with respect to any concerns about HD Mining Ltd following the rules under the TFWP; (t) with respect to the Labour Market Opinions (LMOs) that are subject to the Review, (i) how many LMOs will be subject to the Review and for which employers, (ii) what will the Review of each of those LMOs entail, (iii) what impact will the Review have on the status of these LMOs during the Review, (iv) what are the possible impacts of the Review on the status of these LMOs once the review is complete; and (u) for the CIC work permits that are subject to the Review, (i) how many work permits will be subject to the Review and for which employers, (ii) what will the review of each of those work permits entail, (iii) what impact will the Review have on the status of these work permits during the Review, (iv) what are the possible impacts of the Review on the status of these work permits once the review is complete?

Q-1096² — December 4, 2012 — — With regard to federal research relating to water: (a) in which federally-owned facilities and departments, including the Experimental Lakes Area, is the government conducting research on water issues, including but not limited to research relating to fisheries, fish habitat, climate change, groundwater, water quality, and wastewater technology and processes; and (b) since January 1, 2006 what major water-related research projects have been or are currently being undertaken in these facilities and departments, ranked by project budget size?

Q-1097² — December 5, 2012 — — With regard to the government's answer to Written Question No. 950 in the current session of Parliament, pursuant to what policy, directive, order, guideline, law or other document are the file numbers which were, in part, the subject of that question, deemed to be confidential?

Q-1098² — December 5, 2012 — — With regard to Aboriginal affairs, what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any reports, studies, files, or dossiers, dated between January 1, 2006, and May 31, 2011, held by any department or agency, concerning the Labrador Metis Association, Labrador Metis Nation, or NunatuKavut?

Q-1099² — December 5, 2012 — — With regard to access to information requests, broken down by each department or agency of government subject to the Access to Information Act: (a) what is the practice to release records in digital form pursuant to a request made under the Act and in what electronic format are such records released to a requester; (b) following an access to information request, are records released in the original format in which they were created and if another format is used, what is it; (c) if records are released in digital format, why, and if not, why not; (d) in what policy, circular, notice, memorandum, directive, or other document is the department or agency's policy concerning release or non-release of electronic records contained?

Q-1100² — December 6, 2012 — — With regard to Sir John A. Macdonald's grave site and bicentennial in January 2015: (a) what is the total amount of dollars per year for the upkeep of Sir John A. Macdonald's grave site, which is listed in the National Program for the Grave Sites of Canadian Prime Ministers, from 2006 to 2012; (b) is the government considering allocating funding for the basic upkeep of Sir John A. Macdonald's grave site in the 2013 budget; (c) is the government considering funding the memorial service for Sir John A. Macdonald held at his grave site annually on January 6; and (d) what other steps has the government taken to commemorate Sir John A. Macdonald's upcoming bicentennial?

Q-1101² — December 6, 2012 — — With regard to the concerns raised in Chapter 5 of the 2012 Fall Report of the Auditor General concerning National Defence real property: (a) what Budget 2012 funding was internally reallocated within the Department of National Defence to address these concerns; (b) what was the amount of this funding, by military base and by off-base military building or location; (c) from which expenditure items were these funds reallocated; and (d) what type of work was funded by these reallocations, on which bases and over what time frame?

Q-1102² — December 10, 2012 — — With respect to Citizenship and Immigration’s oversight of reciprocal agreements of Canadian and foreign airlines: (a) what documentation has been received by Citizenship and Immigration Canada from Canadian air carriers with regard to foreign operators with which they have reciprocal agreements for the seasonal exchange of pilots and what is a breakdown of where the latter airlines are based in, (i) the European Union, (ii) all other countries where such reciprocal agreements would be applicable; (b) what does the government consider an acceptable reference period for establishing whether a minimum 75% threshold ratio has been achieved by Canadian and foreign airlines engaged in reciprocal pilot exchange agreements i.e. three offshore real and equivalent job opportunities for Canadians for every four foreign workers admitted to Canada per the agreements in question (a); (c) what documentation and supporting evidence is required to prove reciprocal opportunities exist for Canadian pilots abroad and where such evidence relies on forecasted market demand, what are the repercussions for the foreign worker quotas established if the Canadian employer fails to meet its commitments regarding job opportunities abroad; (d) how are reciprocal agreements between Canadian companies and foreign entities being enforced both presently and historically; (e) how many foreign pilots have been allowed to work in Canada on the basis of reciprocal agreements in 2010, 2011 and 2012 and how is it calculated; (f) how are reciprocal agreement guidelines (i) developed, (ii) amended; (g) if a Labour Market Opinion (LMO) application is received concerning commercial airline pilots, are guidelines and enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure that the Canadian employer is providing fair opportunities for employment to Canadian commercial airline pilots before resorting to the importation of foreign workers; (h) is Human Resources and Skills Development Canada actively verifying that the Canadian employer requesting the LMO is not requiring job qualifications as part of a system that would deprive otherwise qualified Canadian airline pilots of employment opportunities; and (i) what is the average length of time between the receipt of an application and the issuance of the decision for an LMO?

Q-1103² — December 10, 2012 — — With regard to details of Bill S-7, the Combatting Terrorism Act: (a) when will cooperation protocols or memoranda of understanding relating to enforcement of the new ‘leaving the country’ Criminal Code offences be ready; (b) what agencies will be part of the protocols or memoranda, and what subject matter will be covered; (c) will the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) have any vetting or review functions with respect to the protocols or memoranda, and will any other review mechanism for the operation of the protocols or memoranda be put in place; (d) is either (i) an exit control system being planned, or (ii) an information system to allow the government to be aware of when people are leaving being planned; (e) is it the intention of the government to reform the passenger information system for departing airplanes so that passenger lists are available to Canadian agencies before planes leave the ground, in order to permit the arrest of persons leaving contrary to the ‘leaving the country’ offences in Bill S-7; (f) is a reform of the no-fly list being envisaged as one method of enforcing the ‘leaving the country’ offences in Bill S-7; (g) how is it envisaged that investigative hearings will be used to discern an individual’s intention of leaving the country for purposes of terrorism, and is it envisaged that neighbours, family members, friends and acquaintances in the community of a suspect will be the subjects of investigative hearings for this purpose; (h) how would hearings that deal with recognizance with conditions produce evidence of intention to leave the country; (i) can a person suspected of wanting to leave, or wanting to attempt to leave, the country in violation of the new ‘leaving the country’ offences in Bill S-7 be preventively detained and subjected to recognizance with conditions that include a prohibition on leaving Canada and measures such as confiscating the suspect’s passport for up to 12 months; (j) is the above interaction of the leaving the country offences and recognizance with conditions a planned use of the recognizance with conditions provisions; and (k) can a person be subjected to preventive detention or recognisance with conditions in an effort to prevent terrorist activity that another person – other than the person subjected to the conditions – may engage in, even if there is no concern that the person subjected to the conditions will herself or himself commit terrorist activity?

Q-1104² — December 10, 2012 — — With regard to Sri Lankan nationals being sent back to Sri Lanka by Canada: (a) in assessing the risk of torture or other abuses that could be faced by a person sent by Canada to Sri Lanka, what relevance is given to the following factors: (i) the person being a young Tamil male from the north or northeast of Sri Lanka, (ii) the person being returned from a country or city viewed by the Sri Lankan government as formerly or currently a hub of pro-Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) activity, (iii) the person having voiced criticism or engaged in peaceful protest against the government of Sri Lanka while outside Sri Lanka; (b) does the government consider Sri Lankan nationals of Tamil or Tamil-speaking origin to be vulnerable as a group to mistreatment in Sri Lanka and, if not, does the government consider any of the following sub-groups to be at risk: (i) young males, (ii) critics of the Sri Lanka regime, (iii) journalists, (iv) failed refugee claimants, (v) successful refugee claimants being refouled, (vi) known members of the LTTE, (vii) persons suspected or likely to be suspected by the Sri Lankan government as being members of the LTTE, (viii) persons known to hold pro-LTTE views; (c) in the case of sending a Sri Lankan national to Sri Lanka, whether by extradition, deportation, removal or any other method involving the government, do Canadian officials take any of the following precautions: i) escort returnees on the plane back to Sri Lanka, ii) meet returnees upon their arrival at the airport in Sri Lanka, iii) observe treatment of the returnee at the airport (and if so, for how long), iv) monitor the whereabouts and treatment of a returnee after the airport arrival; (d) does the taking of precautions relate in any way to whether or not a person has been sent back to Sri Lanka only after Canada has received diplomatic assurances; (e) has the government, whether in Canada or at the Embassy of Canada in Sri Lanka, received reports or expressions of concern from reliable sources about the treatment of persons sent from Canada to Sri Lanka and, if so, how many and on what dates; (f) has the government, whether in Canada or at the Embassy of Canada in Sri Lanka, received reports or expressions of concern from reliable sources about the treatment of persons who voluntarily returned from Canada to Sri Lanka after having arrived in Canada to make a refugee claim and, if so, how many and on what dates; (g) when concerns are expressed from reliable sources in cases (e) and (f), such as by a Canadian lawyer, about the treatment of a returnee after their return to Sri Lanka and the location of the returnee, such as in Criminal Investigation Division (CID) custody or in hospital, (i) what measures does the Embassy of Canada in Sri Lanka take, (ii) if any measures are taken, do they include visiting the returnee and interviewing them about any abuse or persecution they may have suffered, (iii) if interviewing does take place, does it take place in the presence of Sri Lanka state officials and, if so, whom, (iv) if the interview raises concerns or suspicions about abuse of persecution, what is then done; (h) are Canadian law enforcement, border services, intelligence, military, or diplomatic officials permitted to (i) participate in interrogations by any state actors in Sri Lanka, (ii) observe such interrogations, (iii) supply information for, or questions to be asked at, such interrogations, and if so, which category of officials (law enforcement, intelligence, military, or diplomatic) with which Sri Lanka state actors, under what circumstances and subject to what conditions may this have taken place; (i) from 2003 to present, have Canadian law enforcement, border services, intelligence, military, or diplomatic officials ever (i) participated in interrogations by any state actors in Sri Lanka, (ii) observed such interrogations, (iii) supplied information for, or questions to be asked at, such interrogations and, if so, by which category of officials (law enforcement, intelligence, military, or diplomatic), to which Sri Lankan state actor, under what circumstances and subject to what conditions may this have taken place; (j) how many Sri Lankan nationals have been sent back to Sri Lanka, whether by extradition, deportation, removal or any other method involving the government, since the beginning of 2007, in each of (i) 2007, (ii) 2008, (iii) 2009, (iv) 2010, (v) 2011, (vi) 2012 to date; (k) within the above numbers, which are due to removal orders; (l) how many Sri Lankan nationals are currently subject to removal orders that have not yet been executed; (m) how many of those sent to Sri Lanka since the start of 2007 have been sent only after diplomatic assurances were obtained; (n) are such assurances legally binding and, if not, on what basis did the government consider them reliable; (o) in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s comments in Suresh on the problem with relying on assurances from a government of a state where torture is practised, does the government consider that diplomatic assurances from Sri Lanka can be relied upon at the present time; (p) in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s comments in Suresh on monitoring in relation to diplomatic assurances, does the government consider that monitoring mechanisms must be part of diplomatic assurances and, if so, what are the nature of the mechanisms in any diplomatic assurances with respect to returnees to Sri Lanka; (q) are there written policies, sets of guidelines or similar documents containing rules, principles or considerations for determining when and how assurances will be sought, and for determining if assurances are adequate; and (r) with respect to Vote 30b of the Supplementary Estimates considered at the Justice and Human Rights Standing Committee on November 29, 2012, and its reference to “assurances against torture in exceptional removal cases”, (i) what is the definition of an “exceptional removal case”, (ii) how many such cases have there been between 2007 and present, (iii) how many have been removals to Sri Lanka?

Q-1105² — December 10, 2012 — — With respect to the World War II Canadian military site in Botwood, Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what records and internal and external correspondence are available regarding all aspects of its history and cleanup, contamination studies, ownership, divestiture to the municipality or province, plans, or any other information related to the site, and what are the details of these records and correspondence; (b) what plans are there to compensate the Town of Botwood for its investment in cleaning up the Canadian military contamination on this site; (c) what plans are there to complete the removal of contaminants on this site; (d) what are the timelines for the plans in (c); and (e) for all responses to (a), (b), (c) and (d), what are the details of all records and correspondence specifically generated in preparing the response to this question?

Q-1106² — December 10, 2012 — — With regard to websites accessed on the personal departmental desktops computers, lap top computers, mobile phones, including Blackberries, tablet computers, or other internet enabled devices paid for with taxpayers dollars to the Minister of State (Democratic Reform): (a) what are all the URLs of all websites accessed on said devices between 12:01 a.m. on December 6, 2012, and 12:01 a.m. on December 8, 2012, date and times inclusive; and (b) at what times were those websites accessed?

Q-1107² — December 10, 2012 — — With regard to budget cuts at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO ) : (a) what is a detailed breakdown of the $11.5 million reduction in funding for investments in Fisheries Science Research; (b) what is a detailed breakdown of the cuts to habitat management, including (i) the total number of jobs lost, (ii) the location of the jobs lost, (iii) the titles of the jobs lost; (c) what is a detailed breakdown of the financial cuts to each DFO research centres in Canada; and (d) what is a detailed breakdown of the DFO cuts on Prince Edward Island, including (i) the total number of jobs lost, (ii) the location and job title of each job lost, (iii) what office spaces will be left vacant because of DFO cutbacks and what, if any, are the plans for the vacated office spaces?

Q-1108 — December 10, 2012 — — With regard to the May 29, 2012, announcement of the closure, to the public, of the visa section of the Canadian Consulate General in Buffalo : (a) how many permanent resident visa applications were transferred to Ottawa (i) in total, (ii) broken down by type of visa application, including Federal Skilled Worker, Quebec Skilled Worker, Provincial Nominee Program, Federal Investor Program, Self-employed Class, Quebec Business Class, Canadian Experience Class, Entrepreneur Class, Permanent Resident Class, Family Class, and other classes of application; (b) how many of the total permanent resident visa applications that were transferred to Ottawa have been fully processed as of (i) May 29, 2012, (ii) June 29, 2012, (iii)July 29, 2012, (iv) August 29, 2012, (v) September 29, 2012, (vi) October 29, 2012, (vii) November 29, 2012; (c) how many of the permanent resident visa applications that were transferred to Ottawa have been fully processed, broken down by type of application including Federal Skilled Worker, Quebec Skilled Worker, Provincial Nominee Program, Federal Investor Program, Self-employed Class, Quebec Business Class, Canadian Experience Class, Entrepreneur Class, Permanent Resident Class, Family Class, and other classes of application; (d) how many of the total permanent resident visa applications that were transferred to Ottawa have been fully processed as of (i) May 29, 2012, (ii) June 29, 2012, (iii)July 29, 2012, (iv) August 29, 2012, (v) September 29, 2012, (vi) October 29, 2012, (vii) November 29, 2012; (e) how many of the total permanent resident visa applications that have been transferred from Buffalo to Ottawa required medical examination results; (f) of the total permanent resident visa applications that have been transferred from Buffalo to Ottawa that required medical examination results, (i) how many more exceeded the 12-month validity period of the medical examination results, (ii) how many more can be reasonably expected to exceed the 12-month validity period of the medical examination results; (g) what kind of provisions has or will Citizenship and Immigration Canada make for permanent resident applicants that have seen the validity of their medical examination results expire as a result of the delays in processing that have arisen from the transfer of applications from the Buffalo to the Ottawa office, in particular for those applicants that already have a job waiting for them and in general for other applicants; (h) how many calls and emails has the department received regarding the delays that have resulted from the transfer of applications from the Buffalo to the Ottawa office, broken down by (i) inquiries regarding the status of an application due to delays in applications processing, (ii) complaints regarding the status of an application due to delays in applications processing; and (i) what is the value of Budget 2012 cuts reflected in the closure of the Buffalo office in (i) personnel reductions, measured in full-time equivalence, (ii) service level impacts?


² Response requested within 45 days