— by Ms. Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie), one concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (No. 412-5836);

— by Mrs. Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton), one concerning tobacco (No. 412-5837);

— by Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), six concerning cruelty to animals (Nos. 412-5838 to 412-5843);

— by Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre), three concerning security information (Nos. 412-5844 to 412-5846);

— by Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher), one concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (No. 412-5847);

— by Mr. Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert), one concerning the grain industry (No. 412-5848);

— by Mr. Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin), one concerning credit and debit cards (No. 412-5849).

Q-1148 — Mr. Warawa (Langley) — With regard to government funding in the riding of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1148.

Q-1150 — Mr. Dubourg (Bourassa) — With regard to the Excise Tax Act, specifically Schedule V, Part II, section 1.2, its application to the provisions of medical examinations, reports, and certificates since March 21, 2013, and its application to “qualifying” health care supplies: (a) what supplies are no longer considered to be a qualifying health care supply and are now subject to GST/HST; (b) what services performed by health care professionals and practitioners are now taxable; (c) what specific reports, evaluations, examinations, assessments, and certificates are now subject to HST/GST for each of the following practitioners, (i) psychology, (ii) social work services, (iii) psychiatry, (iv) medical practitioners, (v) optometrists, (vi) occupational therapist, (vii) chiropractors, (viii) physiotherapists, (ix) nursing services, (x) dietetic services, (xi) dental hygienist services, (xii) laboratory services; (d) with what stakeholders and professional organizations has the Department of Finance consulted about this tax change; (e) what stakeholders and professional associations has Canada Revenue Agency consulted with about this tax change; (f) what revenue will the government collect each year from 2013 to 2020 as a result of this tax change; (g) what revenue will the government collect each year from 2013 to 2020 for each type of report, evaluations, examinations, assessments, and certificates that are now subject to GST/HST; (h) what specific court decision led to the new definition of qualifying health care supply; (i) for each supply, service, evaluation, examination, assessment, certificate and specific report identified in (a), (b), and (c), will Canadian veterans be charged HST/GST either directly or indirectly by a health care practitioner or practitioners; (j) for each supply, service, evaluation, examination, assessment, certificate, and specific report identified in (a), (b), and (c), will Canadian veterans be charged HST/GST either directly or indirectly by psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, registered marriage and family therapists, and clinical care managers who are on Veterans Affairs Canada's approved list of service providers; (k) will the government be seeking to collect this tax retroactively; and (l) are the following reports, evaluations, examinations, assessments, and certificates subject to HST/GST, (i) custody assessments for Superior Court, (ii) disability determination packages, (iii) psychological assessments of individuals with developmental disabilities for the purpose of supporting eligibility applications for supportive, rehabilitation, and community living programs and services? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1150.

Q-1154 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to government funding allocated in the constituency of Thunder Bay—Superior North, broken down by fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present: (a) what is the total amount of this funding, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) program, (iv) any other government body; and (b) how many jobs are estimated to have been created by this funding, broken down by (i) full-time jobs, (ii) part-time jobs? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1154.

Q-1155 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the Ebola vaccine developed at the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML): (a) on what date did research for the vaccine begin; (b) what are the names of the scientists involved in the research, and what are their positions; (c) why was the vaccine research initially undertaken; (d) was the research undertaken at any time in relation to anti-bioterrorism, and, if so, during what periods and with what specific mandate; (e) who provided funding for the research and development of the vaccine; (f) was the Government of Canada the only contributor to the research and development fund; (g) how much funding did the government provide, broken down by (i) percentage, (ii) department, (iii) date, (iv) dollar amount of contribution; (h) on what date was a robust immune response demonstrated to the vaccine; (i) on what date were research findings published and in what journal, and, if none were published, why not; (j) on what date was the vaccine patented and when was the initial patent application brought; (k) in which countries is the vaccine patented; (l) during what specific time period was the vaccine produced, (i) how many vials were produced, (ii) who was informed of this production, (iii) how were they informed; (m) was there a competitive process to sell the licensing rights or other entitlements relating to the vaccine; (n) if the process in (m) was created, (i) who developed the criteria for the licensing rights or other entitlements, broken down by position and department, (ii) what were the criteria to obtain the licensing rights or other entitlements, (iii) on what date was the competitive process launched, (iv) how many companies bid for the rights, (v) which companies bid for the rights and on what dates, (vi) how did NewLink Genetics (including Bioprotection Systems Corporation) meet the criteria for the licensing rights or other entitlements; (o) on what date was NewLink Genetics awarded the rights or entitlements; (p) what specific experience did NewLink Genetics have with vaccines, specifically when it comes to manufacturing capacity; (q) what NewLink Genetics products had reached the point of commercial production at the time of its bidding and purchase of the rights; (r) on what date did NewLink Genetics purchase the rights or entitlements from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and for what cost; (s) as part of the licensing agreement, was NewLink Genetics expected to meet any milestones by any particular dates, (i) if so, when, (ii) if not, why not; (t) as part of the licensing agreement, what percentage royalties would NewLink Genetics pay Canada on any sales of the vaccine; (u) to date, how much income has the government obtained from licensing the vaccine, broken down by (i) up-front payments, (ii) milestone payments, (iii) any other payments; (v) did any of the NML or PHAC scientists/staff have any associations or links or monetary or proprietary interests or any other association with NewLink Genetics, and, if so, what are they; (w) did Canadian officials and the licensee meet annually in face-to-face meetings as required by Article 7.9 of the license agreement, and, if so, for all meetings, what is (i) the date, (ii) location, (iii) the names of all persons in attendance; (x) on what date did NewLink Genetics begin clinical trials of the vaccine; (y) how long was the delay between the onset of the commercial relationship with NewLink Genetics and start of clinical trials, broken down by (i) days, (ii) months, (iii) years; (z) what reason was given for the delay in (y); (aa) did the government question the progress of the clinical trials, if so, on what specific dates, and, if not, why not; (bb) in Canada's licensing agreement with NewLink Genetics, did Canada have the right to let other manufacturers make the vaccine for use in other countries "for compassionate care purposes" if NewLink had not received regulatory approval for the vaccine in the target country; (cc) did anyone in Canada urge the government to terminate its agreement with NewLink Genetics, and, if so, (i) who did so, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (dd) did anyone outside Canada request that Canada cancel NewLink's rights under the license, and, if so, (i) who did so, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (ee) did the government terminate the agreement, (i) if so, why, (ii) if not, why not; (ff) if the government terminated the agreement with NewLink Genetics, would Merck have paid the government the $30 million up front and $20 million once larger formal trials begun that went to NewLink Genetics, and would the government have been eligible to receive royalties on sales in certain markets; (gg) did the government approve of NewLink Genetics sub-licensing the vaccine to Merck; (hh) on what date did the government pay for IDT Biologika, to manufacture approximately 1 500 vials of the vaccine suitable for human trials, (i) how much was paid, (ii) was the Department of Defence involved, and, if so, why, (iii) did the Department of Defence contribute any funds; (ii) on what date did the Ebola outbreak begin in West Africa; (jj) on what date did the government reveal it had in storage an experimental vaccine that might be of use in combating the epidemic; (kk) on what date did the government offer vaccine to the World Health Organization (WHO); (ll) how many vials were sent to the WHO by the government, (i) on what date did the vials arrive, (ii) were there any delays; (mm) what are the results of the eight, phase l clinical trials in terms of (i) safety, (ii) immunogenic response, (iii) dose strength for phase 2/3 clinical trials; (nn) on what date did phase 2/3 clinical trials begin in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone; and (oo) what was the government’s involvement overall, broken down by (i) expertise, (ii) funding, (iii) personnel, (iv) other? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1155.

Q-1162 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) for 2013 and 2014, what was the average length of time between the receipt of an application for a Labour Market Opinion (LMO) and the issuance of a decision, broken down by province; (b) for 2014 and 2015, what was the average length of time between the receipt of an application for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and the issuance of a decision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (c) for 2013 and 2014, what was the average length of time between the receipt of an application for an LMO for the Live-In Caregiver Program and the issuance of a decision, broken down by province; (d) for 2014 and 2015, what was the average length of time between the receipt of an application for an LMIA for the Caregiver Program and the issuance of a decision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month, (iii) province; (e) for 2014, how many LMO were approved for the Live-In Caregiver Program, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; and (f) for 2014 and 2015, how many LMIA were approved for the Caregiver Program, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1162.

Q-1164 — Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to the National Strategy for Financial Literacy Phase 1 - Strengthening Seniors' Financial Literacy campaign: (a) how much money has been spent to date on developing and implementing the campaign; (b) when will the campaign be launched; (c) what is the budget for the campaign; (d) what individuals and organizations were consulted on the development of the campaign; (e) what measure will be undertaken to promote the campaign; and (f) will there be paid public advertising for the campaign and, if so, what is the budget for that advertising? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1164.

Q-1167 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to Transport Canada and Marine Atlantic Incorporated, for fiscal years 1998 to 2007, and for fiscal years 2007-2008 to 2014-2015, respectively, while taking into consideration any transition to new accounting periods: (a) what was the (i) annual parliamentary appropriation supplied to Marine Atlantic Incorporated, (ii) total annual revenue collected from users, (iii) annual gross revenue; (b) what was the percentage of cost recovery from users broken down by (i) company-wide operations, (ii) the Port aux Basques to North Sydney route operations, (iii) the Argentia to North Sydney route operations; (c) based on the information provided in (b), what capital and what operational inputs are generally included in items (i) to (iii) respectively; (d) what rates have been charged to users for each type of service offered by Marine Atlantic Incorporated during this period and what was the effective net rate for each such service, broken down by any (i) additional service fees, (ii) fuel surcharges, (iii) security fees, (iv) all other incremental fees or charges that may have been applied; (e) what was the first year that a fuel surcharge was applied to any rates; and (f) has there been a year in which the previous year’s fuel surcharge was rolled into or combined with the previously established rates, and subsequently, a new fuel surcharge established over and above the new rate? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1167.

Q-1168 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to Transport Canada and Marine Atlantic Incorporated: (a) what were the costs incurred to refit each vessel to comply with Canadian safety standards or to refurbish or alter the vessels in any way before Marine Atlantic took possession of each vessel, for the (i) Motor Vessel (MV) Atlantic Vision, (ii) MV Blue Puttees, (iii) MV Highlanders; (b) what were the costs incurred to refit each vessel to comply with Canadian safety standards or to refurbish or alter the vessels in any way after Marine Atlantic took possession of each vessel in (a); (c) what were the annual lease costs paid out from 2008-2009 to the present, as well as the anticipated annual lease costs for each vessel in (a); (d) what, if any, is the pre-negotiated purchase price for each vessel if they were to be purchased from their owners by Transport Canada or Marine Atlantic at the end of their current leases, for each vessel in (a); (e) what are the anticipated costs to Transport Canada or to Marine Atlantic of not renewing the vessel leases beyond the current terms and returning the vessels to their owners for each vessel in (a); and (f) based on the information in (e), what are the details of these costs? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1168.

Q-1170 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to Marine Atlantic Incorporated, during fiscal years 1998 to 2007 and 2007-2008 to 2014-2015, respectively, while taking into consideration any transition to new accounting periods, and broken down by the specific route and by the specific vessel within the fleet that was involved: (a) how many times in each month of every year was a scheduled ferry crossing delayed, and how long did each delay last, due to (i) mechanical issues, (ii) weather related issues, (iii) a combination of weather and mechanical issues; (b) how many times in each month of every year was a scheduled crossing cancelled due to (i) mechanical issues, (ii) weather issues, (iii) other issues; (c) were there ever periods of time in which Transport Canada or Marine Atlantic Incorporated believed that Term 32 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada was not being fulfilled and, if so, what were these periods of time and what was understood to be the cause of the failure to fulfill this constitutional obligation; (d) did Transport Canada or Marine Atlantic ever receive advice from an outside consultant concerning the optimal ferry vessel size and vessel specifications for the Port aux Basques to North Sydney ferry service and, if so, of all the options that were analyzed, was there a particular hull size that was believed by the consultants to likely be the most optimal for operations on this service and, if so, (i) what was this hull size , (ii) what were there reasons given for this conclusion; and (e) what is the definition of the constitutional term “as traffic offers” in government documentation, and what are the specific service delivery standards or operational standards required for compliance with this constitutional obligation, in terms of traffic offering and the government delivering the transportation by means of the ferry service? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1170.

Q-1175 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to Marine Atlantic Incorporated: (a) what are all projects, initiatives, or expenditures stemming from the five-year investment fund announced in the 2010 federal budget, broken down by: (i) cost, (ii) date, (iii) timelines, (iv) rationales for each project or initiative; (b) what are the details of all government correspondences and documentations relating to the five-year investment, including (i) relevant file or tracking numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials, agencies, departments, or contractors copied or involved; (c) what are the details of all government correspondences and documentation concerning Marine Atlantic Incorporated as it relates to the Ferry Services Stewardship and Support Program and the Transportation Infrastructure Program through Transport Canada since the creation of these programs, including (i) relevant file or tracking numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials, agencies, departments, or contractors copied or involved; (d) has Marine Atlantic undertaken any advertising or marketing of the promotional discount campaign for the North Sydney-Argentia run and, if so, what has been done, broken down by (i) date, (ii) cost, (iii) medium, (iv) targeted audiences; (e) again with respect to the promotional discount campaign, (i) what is the rationale in detail concerning the status and future planning of the promotional discount campaign for ferry services, (ii) what is the rationale in detail why the promotional discount campaign was not applied to the Port aux Basques-North Sydney run, (iii) was any public opinion research conducted prior to launching the promotional discount campaign and, if so, what are the details of any such research; and (f) what are the details of all government correspondences and documentation concerning the promotional discount campaign, including (i) relevant file or tracking numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials, agencies, departments, or contractors copied or involved? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1175.

Accordingly, Mr. MacKenzie (Oxford) laid upon the Table, — A House of Commons calendar for the year 2016. — Sessional Paper No. 8530-412-27.