;

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


Tuesday, December 10, 2013 (No. 34)

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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.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-100² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the areas with postal codes beginning in V6B, V6E, V6G, V6J, V5Y, V5Z, V6A, V7Y, V6H, V6Z, V6C, V7X and V5T for the period of January 24, 2006, to May 27, 2013, inclusive, what funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued and, in each case, where applicable, (i) what was the program under which the payment was made, (ii) what were the names of the recipients, (iii) what was the monetary value of the payment made, (iv) what was the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

Q-101² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to Marchese Hospital Solutions’ (MHS) communications with Health Canada (HC) from January 1, 2010, to May 15, 2013: (a) on what dates did HC receive any form of communication from MHS; (b) what was the subject-matter of each form of communication; (c) did HC respond to each form of communication received; and (d) did MHS request to be regulated by HC?

Q-102² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to the Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-Being (NDPHS): (a) on what date did the government commit to participate in the Partnership; (b) what was Canada’s committed annual financial contribution; (c) has Canada ever made a financial contribution to the NDPHS and, if so, how much; (d) what groups and organizations did the government consult in its decision to withdraw from the NDPHS; (e) has the government received any form of communication from other members of the NDPHS regarding Canada’s withdrawal from the Partnership; and (f) was the Minister of Health ever advised on withdrawing from the NDPHS by her department and, if so, what was the department’s recommendation?

Q-103² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to the Federal Framework on Suicide Prevention: (a) what actions has the government taken to implement this framework; (b) what groups and organizations have made submissions to Health Canada (HC) or the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC); (c) has HC or the PHAC invited any groups, individuals or organizations to make submissions; (d) what is the department’s timeline to implement the framework; (e) will there be public consultations on the framework and, if so, when will they be held; and (f) what are the departments or agencies involved in the development of the framework?

Q-104² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to imprisonment for life: (a) what offences in the Criminal Code allow for imprisonment for life; (b) how many individuals have been charged with an offence carrying with it a sentence of imprisonment for life, for each of the last ten years, broken down by province and offence; (c) for the individuals charged in (b), how many were convicted; (d) for the individuals in (c), how many received a sentence of life imprisonment; (e) how many individuals in Canada are serving a sentence of “imprisonment for life” and broken down by province and offence, (i) in what year were they sentenced, (ii) how many have been designated as dangerous offenders, (iii) of those designated in (ii), how many have received parole in the last 20 years, broken down by year, (iv) of those designated in (iii), how many have reoffended while on parole; (f) how many prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment for life applied for parole and how many of them received parole, broken down by year, for the last 20 years; (g) what is the percentage of prisoners sentenced to life whose parole is approved, broken down by year, for the last 25 years, (i) of those sentenced to life, what type of parole was granted, (ii) of the breakdown in (i), how many committed an offence, (iii) what is the recidivism rate of those sentenced for life who are granted parole; (h) what is the percentage of prisoners not sentenced to life whose parole was approved, broken down by year, for the last 25 years, (i) of those not sentenced to life, what type of parole was granted, (ii) of the breakdown in (i), how many committed an offence, (iii) what is the recidivism rate of those not sentenced for life who are granted parole; (i) is there evidence to demonstrate that offenders sentenced to life and granted parole are more likely to reoffend while on parole than offenders not sentenced to life who are granted parole, (i) what evidence has the government sought in relation to this question, (ii) on what dates; (j) what studies has the government undertaken with respect to life imprisonment; (k) is there evidence to suggest that dangerous offender legislation is ineffective, (i) what evidence has the government sought in relation this question, (ii) on what dates; (l) what studies has the government undertaken with respect to dangerous offenders; (m) what evidence has the government sought in relation to assessing the effectiveness of parole; (n) what studies has the government undertaken in relation to assessing the effectiveness of parole; (o) what studies have been undertaken with regard to what effect eliminating imprisonment for life would have on prison violence, (i) on what dates, (ii) with what result; (p) what studies have been undertaken with regard to what effect eliminating imprisonment for life would have on prison overcrowding, (i) on what dates, (ii) with what result; (q) what evidence has the government sought in determining that eliminating imprisonment for life would improve public safety; (r) what studies have been undertaken as to whether removing parole for those imprisoned for life would serve as a deterrent; (s) is there any evidence to suggest that removing parole for those imprisoned for life would serve as a deterrent to criminal activity; (t) has the government assessed the cost of removing parole for those imprisoned for life, if so, what (i) are the figures for each of the next ten years, broken down by province and year, (ii) is the information as to how these figures were assessed; and (u) has the government assessed whether removing the possibility of parole for those sentenced to life would result in any increased cost to the provinces, and if so, (i) to what extent, broken down by province and territory, (ii) for what purpose(s), (iii) were the provinces consulted in this regard, (iv) if so, when and by whom?

Q-105² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to the use of Minister’s Permits by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, how many Minister’s Permits were issued each year from 2006 to 2013?

Q-106² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to government grants, contributions and loans made between fiscal years 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 inclusive to organizations or businesses located in the postal Forward Sortation Areas M8X, M9A, M9B, M9C, M9P, and M9R, what are the details of such funding, including (i) funding program, (ii) date of funding or contribution agreement, (iii) total funding amount, (iv) recipient, (v) nature or purpose of the funding?

Q-107² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to government communications, what were the costs of transmitting each of the following press releases using Marketwire (or Marketwired) or Canada NewsWire: (a) “Harper Government continues to engage industry on the Canadian surface combatant project”, issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) on March 8, 2013; (b) “Harper Government Invests in Canadian entrepreneurial business in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec”, issued by PWGSC on March 15, 2013; (c) “Harper Government kick-starts entrepreneurial and innovative business in Beaconsfield, Quebec”, issued by PWGSC on March 18, 2013; (d) “Harper Government's ship strategy bolstering Canada's economy”, issued by PWGSC on March 7, 2013; (e) “National Fighter Procurement Secretariat awards contract for next independent cost review”, issued by PWGSC on March 11, 2013; (f) “Work progresses on Harper Government's evaluation of options to replace Canada's CF-18s”, issued by PWGSC on March 3, 2013; (g) “Harper Government and Wounded Warriors Canada Continue to Work Together in Support of the Vancouver Homeless Veterans Project”, issued by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) on March 11, 2013; (h) “Harper Government Commends Queen's University for Offering Priority Hiring to Veterans”, issued by VAC on February 27, 2013; (i) “Harper Government Marks the End of the Italian Campaign”, issued by VAC on February 22, 2013; and (j) “Harper Government Announces Funding to Support Brain Research”, issued by Health Canada on May 3, 2012?

Q-108² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to the Enforcement and Disclosures Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), for the years 2003 to 2013, inclusive, by year: (a) what is the budget of the Directorate; (b) how many people work at the Directorate; and (c) what training does CRA staff receive in the prosecution of cases against overseas tax evaders?

Q-109² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to the news release dated May 8, 2013, in which the Minister of National Revenue announced “new measures” to fight overseas tax evasion including “An additional $15 million in reallocated CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) funds that will be used to bring in new audit and compliance resources dedicated exclusively to international compliance issues and revenue collection identified as a result of measures outlined in Economic Action Plan 2013”: (a) what, specifically, are these “new audit and compliance resources”; (b) what is each projected to cost; and (c) from where, within the CRA, will the $15 million be “reallocated”?

Q-110² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to the consolidation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' library system, for each of the following locations, (i) the St. Andrews Biological Station, St. Andrews, NB, (ii) the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, St. John’s, NL, (iii) the Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, BC, (iv) the Pacific Region Headquarters Library, Vancouver, BC, (v) the Eric Marshall Aquatic Research Library, Winnipeg, MB, (vi), the Maurice Lamontagne Institute Library, Mont-Joli, QC, (vii) the Mère Juliette Library of the Gulf Fisheries Centre, Moncton, NB: (a) how many items from the library’s collection have been retained for consolidation in another regional library; (b) how many items have been (i) deposited in other federal government collections, specifying which collections, (ii) offered to libraries outside the federal government, specifying which libraries and how many have been accepted, (iii) sold, (iv) discarded; (c) for each location, how many items have been digitized, distinguishing government of Canada publications, other government publications and items other than government publications;(d) for each location, what have been the costs associated with discarding surplus items; and (e) what are the file numbers of any contracts or invoices for the removal and disposition of discarded material?

Q-111² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to the Privy Council Office, and to the following documents: the Information to Obtain a Production Order and a Sealing Order, made on June 24, 2013 by Corporal Greg Horton of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Ottawa, Ontario, before Chantal Dominique Marie Lurette, a Commissioner for the Taking of Oaths in the Province of Ontario, in which he states he has reasonable grounds to believe and does believe that offences contrary to an Act of Parliament have been made by Michael Duffy; the statements made in the Senate by Senator Michael Duffy on October 22, 2013, and statements made to the press on October 21, 2013 in Ottawa by Donald Bayne, a lawyer of that city acting on behalf of Senator Duffy: (a) does the Access to Information Directorate of the Privy Council Office still conclude that no records exist with regard to Access to Information requests A-2013-00231, A-2013-00232, A-2013-00233, A-2013-00075, A-2013-00076, A-2013-00077, A-2013-00080, A-2013-00085, A-2013-00099, A-2013-00101, A-2013-00103, A-2013-00104, A-2013-00105, A-2013-00106, A-2013-00113, A-2013-00114, A-2013-00116, A-2013-00120, A-2013-00125, A-2013-00126, A-2013-00131, A-2013-00132, A-2013-00139, and A-2012-00751; (b) will the Directorate re-examine the handling of those requests in light of the new information outlined above; (c) did the Privy Council Office formerly hold records which would have satisfied one or more of those requests; (d) if so, were the records transferred, removed, or destroyed; (e) if transferred or removed, to whose custody or control were they transferred or removed; (f) if destroyed, when were they destroyed, on what date or dates was the destruction approved, and what is the file number of any order, instruction, directive, or authorization concerning their transfer, removal, or destruction?

Q-112² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to Senate motions No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 seeking to suspend Senators Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin without pay: (a) was the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) or the Privy Council Office (PCO) consulted or involved in the drafting of the motions, and, if so, who was involved; (b) what are the details of the emails, briefing notes, reports or other documents that were prepared by, or provided to, the PMO or the PCO for the purpose, in whole or in part, of drafting the motions, specifically the titles or files or reference numbers of those documents; (c) what meetings have the PMO or the PCO had, or been involved in, regarding, in whole or in part, the motions; (d) who attended the meetings in (c); (e) what are the details of the emails, briefing notes, reports or other documents that were prepared for or provided, in whole or in part, at these meetings, specifically the titles or files or reference numbers of those documents?

Q-113² — October 24, 2013 — — With regard to contracts that have been entered into by the government, which require the other contracting party to provide “industrial regional benefits” or other similar offsets across the country, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many have there been; (b) what were the specific commitments made in each case; (c) what is their individual and cumulative dollar value; (d) in which provinces were each of the said benefits/offsets to accrue; and (e) in each case, to what extent have the commitments been honoured?

Q-114² — October 25, 2013 — — With regard to human trafficking in Canada and the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking (NAPCHT): (a) how many charges have been laid under human trafficking specific offences in the Criminal Code since 2005 and what were they; (b) how many convictions have there been of human trafficking specific offences in the Criminal Code since 2005 and, in each case, (i) what was the person convicted of, (ii) what was the sentence, (iii) for a person being convicted of one or more offence, what other offences (if any) in the Criminal Code was the person charged with and convicted of, (iv) what was the sentence for each conviction for offences in the Criminal Code; (c) was there consultation done with stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups in the development of the government’s NAPCHT and, if yes, (i) with which stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups, (ii) did the stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups make recommendations to the government, (iii) what were these recommendations, broken down by each stakeholder, non-governmental organization or other interest group, (iv) which recommendations did the government incorporate into the NAPCHT, (v) which recommendations did the government not incorporate into the NAPCHT and why were they not incorporated; (d) what metrics will the government use to evaluate the effectiveness of the NAPCHT and who developed these metrics; (e) what are the metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the Human Trafficking Taskforce led by Public Safety Canada and who developed these metrics; (f) are there reporting mechanisms in place to report on the effectiveness of the NAPCHT and, if yes, (i) what are these reporting mechanisms, (ii) when is the first report expected, (iii) how often will reports be made, (iv) will these reports be made available to the public and, if not, why not; (g) are there reporting mechanisms in place to report on the effectiveness of the Human Trafficking Taskforce led by Public Safety Canada and, if yes, (i) what are these reporting mechanisms, (ii) when is the first report expected, (iii) how often will reports be expected, (iv) will these reports be made available to the public and, if not, why not; (h) what are the costs of this plan, broken down by year and expense; (i) how much has been allocated for the last five years and under what authority or authorities; (j) in what way(s) does the plan address the needs of victims of trafficking; (k) what specific funding is dedicated to the victims of trafficking and how is it accessed; (l) what sentencing models were considered in the creation of human trafficking offences; (m) which of the models in (l) is most effective and how is effectiveness measured and defined?

Q-115² — October 25, 2013 — — With regard to First Nations education: (a) how many First Nations elementary and secondary schools received Instructional Services funding or band-operated funding formulae by the department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013; (b) what is the total amount of Instructional Services funding allocated nationally and by region for each year; (c) what is the methodology utilized to ensure that allocations under the formula respond to actual costs incurred by First Nations schools; (d) how many teachers and teacher aides in First Nations schools were funded, nationally and by region, by the Instructional Services formula; (e) what is the average salary, nationally and by regional breakdown, for teachers and teacher aides in First Nations schools for each year; (f) how are employee benefits for teachers and teacher aides calculated, (i) how much was allocated to employee benefits for teachers and teacher aides, nationally and regionally, from the Instructional Services formula from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013, (ii) how much was allocated to employee benefits for teachers and teacher aides from the Band Employee Benefits program, nationally and regionally, from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013, (iii) how does the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development ensure that benefit amounts available for First Nations to pay teachers and teacher aides are comparable to those benefits available for teachers in provincial schools; (g) how much of the Instructional Services budget is comprised of salaries for teachers and teacher aides; (h) what was the total nominal roll (number of funded students attending First Nations schools and provincial schools but "normally resident on reserve") nationally and by region for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013; (i) what is the total number of First Nations students ordinarily resident on reserve, age 6-18, who do not appear on the nominal roll; (j) what was the total national allocation to First Nations schools for the following targeted (proposal-based) programs from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013, (i) New Paths, (ii) Parental and Community Engagement, (iii) Teacher Recruitment and Retention, (iv) First Nations SchoolNet; (k) for each program listed in (j), how many recipients were funded; (l) for each program listed in (j), how many First Nations schools belong to the recipient organization; (m) how many recipients of the First Nations Student Success Program were funded and how much funding went directly to a First Nations school; (n) how many recipients of the Education Partnerships Program were funded and how much of the funding went directly into a First Nations school; (o) how many students recipient of the Special Education Program were funded, nationally and regionally, and how many eligible students for the Special Education Program were not funded; (p) how many program applicants of the Indian Studies Support Program were funded, nationally and regionally and how many programs were funded in colleges, universities, First Nations post-secondary institutions and First Nations organizations; (q) for each targeted program (proposal based) listed in (j), (m) and (n) above, how much was allocated internally for departmental use from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013; (r) what was the total amount billed by each province for the education of First Nations students “ordinarily resident on reserve” each year from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013; (s) what are all the required services provincial governments are obliged to provide First Nations students ordinarily resident on reserve in exchange for the government paying the bill for the services; (t) what conditions are put in place to ensure First Nations students ordinarily resident on reserve but attending provincial schools receive instruction in their languages and reflecting their cultures; (u) how does the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development assess programs and services provided by provincial schools for First Nations students ordinarily resident on reserve; (v) what are the federal accountability standards placed on provincial schools for programs and services provided to First Nations students ordinarily resident on reserve; (w) how many First Nations students accessed funding under the Post-Secondary Student Support Program (PSSSP) regionally and nationally for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013; (x) what were the national transfers to First Nations for each year from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013; (y) how many eligible students were not able to access the PSSSP funds from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013; (z) how much was allocated internally to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; (aa) what was the national and regional allocation for the University College Entrance Program for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013; (bb) how many students were funded for each fiscalyear from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013, nationally and regionally; and (cc) what is the total value of the contract numbered #9200-07-0040/04 done by KPMG for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to study education funding on reserve, (i) how were First Nations consulted in the preparation of KPMG’s resulting report, (ii) how is KPMG’s report being utilized by the Department to improve education funding for First Nations schools, (iii) when will the KPMG report be shared with First Nations, (iv) when will the KPMG report be shared with Parliament, (v) what are the results of the KPMG report?

Q-116² — October 25, 2013 — — With regard to human trafficking in Canada and the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking: (a) how many individuals were charged with human trafficking, specific offences under sections 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, and 279.03 of the Criminal Code from January 2005 to February 2012 and, in each case, what was the person charged with; (b) how many convictions were there of human trafficking specific offences under sections 279.1, 279.011, 279.02, and 279.03 of the Criminal Code from January 2005 to February 2012 and, in each case, (i) what was the person convicted of, (ii) what was the sentence, (iii) what other offences (if any) in the Criminal Code was the person charged with, (iv) what other offences, if any, in the Criminal Code was the person convicted of, (v) what was the sentence for each conviction for offences in the Criminal Code; (c) was there consultation done with stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups in the development of the government’s National Action Plan to combat Human Trafficking and, if yes, (i) with which stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups, (ii) did the stakeholders, non-governmental organization or other interest groups make recommendations to the government, (iii) what were these recommendations, broken down by each stakeholder, non-governmental organization or other interest group, (iv) which recommendations did the government incorporate into the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking, (v) which recommendations did the government not incorporate into the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and why were they not incorporated; (d) what metrics will the government use to evaluate the effectiveness of the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and who developed these metrics; (e) what are the metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the Human Trafficking Taskforce led by Public Safety Canada and who developed these metrics; (f) are there reporting mechanisms in place to report on the effectiveness of the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and, if yes, (i) what are these reporting mechanisms, (ii) when is the first report expected, (iii) how often will reports be made, (iv) will these reports be made available to the public and, if not, why not; and (g) are there reporting mechanisms in place to report on the effectiveness of the Human Trafficking Taskforce led by Public Safety Canada and, if yes, (i) what are these reporting mechanisms, (ii) when is the first report expected, (iii) how often will reports be made, (iv) will these reports be made available to the public and, if not, why not?

Q-117² — October 25, 2013 — — With regard to government institutions within the meaning of the Access to Information Act, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014 inclusive, what was or is the budget and total employment, distinguishing full-time and part-time employees, for the Division, Directorate, Office, Secretariat, or other like organization within that institution who are responsible for processing Access to Information requests?

Q-118² — October 25, 2013 — — With regard to pensioners’ contributions to the Public Service Health Care Plan (PSHCP) for retired public servants: (a) does the government intend to double or increase plan premiums; (b) is it accurate to say that PSHCP contribution rates (as a percentage for the pensioner and the government) are the result of an agreement between these two parties and, if so (i) when was this decision made, (ii) what is the rationale for this possible increase, (iii) how will the government go about implementing it; (c) what real savings will result from this premium increase; and (d) have studies been carried out in this regard, (ii) what were the findings?

Q-119² — October 25, 2013 — — With regard to “tax fairness” measures and changes to tax regulations announced in Budget 2011, in which the government claimed that these changes “will yield $240 million in savings in 2011-2012, rising to about $1.0 billion by 2013-2014”: (a) what savings has the Canada Revenue Agency realized, by year, as a result of the implementation of these measures; and (b) which measures yielded these results?

Q-120² — October 25, 2013 — — With respect to lawyers employed by the Canada Revenue Agency : (a) how many were employed for each of the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013; and (b) how many were working as tax prosecutors for each of the years in (a)?

Q-121² — October 25, 2013 — — With regard to the implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) what steps has Canada undertaken to complete an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) with the United States; (b) with what type of legal instrument will the government enact a FATCA implementation agreement; (c) will the government bring an IGA before Parliament and, if so, in what form; (d) what steps are in place to ensure parliamentary review of an IGA; (e) what studies have been undertaken as to whether an IGA can be implemented as an interpretation of the existing double tax treaty; (f) in what ways will the government involve Parliament in any process to amend interpretation of the double taxation treaty; (g) who is involved in the process indicated in (a); (h) by what criteria is the government evaluating any proposed IGA with the US; (i) who established the criteria in (h), (i) on what date, (ii) under what authority; (j) is a draft IGA currently being negotiated, and if so, what is the status of said negotiations; (k) when will the draft IGA be made public; (l) will the public be consulted for input on any agreement, and if so, by what means; (m) with which specific individuals and groups did the Minister of National Revenue consult regarding FATCA, and on what dates; (n) with which specific individuals and groups did the Minister of National Revenue consult regarding any IGA, and on what dates; (o) with which specific individuals and groups did the Minister of Finance consult regarding FATCA, and on what dates; (p) with which specific individuals and groups did the Minister of Finance consult regarding any IGA, and on what dates; (q) what studies and analyses has the Department of Finance undertaken with respect to FATCA; (r) what studies and analyses has the Department of National Revenue undertaken with respect to FATCA; (s) what analyses and studies have been undertaken as to whether the proposed FATCA regime constitutes an override of the existing double tax convention; (t) what were the conclusions of the studies in (s); (u) what steps is the government taking to ensure that, as a result of FATCA or an IGA, the US will not be allowed to impose higher taxes on Canadian persons than those agreed under the current convention; (v) what studies and analyses have been undertaken to determine whether Canadian citizens and residents are or will be denied financial services in Canada owing to US tax law in general and FATCA in particular; (w) what are the conclusions or recommendations of the studies in (v); (x) what mechanisms are in place to ensure that Canadian citizens and residents are not and will not be denied financial services in Canada owing to US tax law in general and FATCA in particular; (y) what measures will be taken to remedy denial of services to Canadians as a result of FATCA; (z) what studies and analyses will be undertaken to assess FATCA’s impact on the availability of TFSAs and RESPs for dual US-Canada citizens; (aa) what are the conclusions of any studies in (z); (bb) what analyses and studies have been undertaken regarding whether the US definition of “resident” for tax purposes, and its impact on Canadians with dual status, is compatible with Canadian law, including the Charter of Rights and freedoms; (cc) what analyses and studies have been undertaken regarding whether the US definition of “resident” for tax purposes, and its impact on Canadians with dual status, as will be enforced by FATCA or by an IGA, is compatible with Canadian law and, in particular, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (dd) what analyses and studies have been conducted with respect to FATCA's consequences upon Canadians who believed their US Citizenship had been relinquished; (ee) with respect to the studies referenced in (dd), what particular efforts has the government undertaken to ensure no violation of a Canadian's charter right would be occasioned by implementing FATCA or an IGA; (ff) what studies and analyses have been undertaken regarding the likely cost of FATCA implementation to (i) Canadian private institutions, (ii) Canadian individuals, (iii) the government; (gg) how were the figures in (ff) arrived at, by whom, when, and in consultation with whom; (hh) what studies and analyses have been undertaken as to whether the likely cost of FATCA implementation to Canadian private institutions, Canadian individuals, and the government will be offset by the receipt of reciprocal tax information and Canadian tax law enforcement by the US; (ii) what analyses and studies have been undertaken as to whether the likely costs and benefits described in (ff) and (hh) are likely to be greater, lesser, or the same as under the current tax-information-sharing relationship with the US; (jj) what agencies, boards, tribunals, or commissions of the government have studied, interpreted, analyzed, or commented upon FATCA, (i) to what extent, (ii) on what dates, (iii) with what conclusion(s); (kk) what specific steps has the government taken to assess the privacy implications of FACTA; (ll) on what dates and with respect to what topics has the government met with the Privacy Commissioner to discuss FATCA or the effect of any IGA; (mm) broken down by province or territory, (i) on which dates and (ii) with what individuals in the provincial and territorial governments did the government consult on the subject of FATCA; (nn) broken down by province or territory, (i) on which dates and (ii) with what individuals in the provincial and territorial governments did the government consult on the subject of any IGA; (oo) does the government have the support of every province and territory with respect to any proposed implementation of FATCA, and what evidence does the government have that this support exists; (pp) has the Department of Justice developed any policy relative to the implementation of an IGA and, if so, (i) how was it developed, (ii) in consultation with whom, (iii) to whom was it provided, (iv) who requested it, (v) what were its findings, conclusions, and recommendations; (qq) how will the government monitor and enforce compliance by Canadian institutions with FATCA requirements; (rr) how will the government monitor and enforce regulatory oversight of the bank due-diligence efforts required by FATCA and its implementation, including (i) by whom (ii) how, (iii) using what standards such efforts will be evaluated; (ss) what penalties exist and what penalties does the government intend to establish for failure to adhere to standards indicated in (rr); (tt) has the Department of Justice or the Department of Revenue developed any legislation or guidance relative to the implementation of an IGA or FATCA and, if so (i) how was it developed, (ii) in consultation with whom, (iii) to whom was it provided, (iv) who requested it, (v) what were its findings, conclusions, and recommendations; (uu) has the Department of Justice reviewed any proposed legislation relative to the implementation of an IGA; (vv) with what individuals or groups has the Department of Justice consulted relative to the implementation of FATCA; (ww), what steps have been undertaken to assess regulatory changes to federal institutions at the provincial and territorial level that would be required as a result of FATCA or any IGA; (xx) what steps has the Canada Revenue Agency taken with regard to developing or implementing FATCA or any IGA; (yy) what tax information does the Canada Revenue agency currently share with the US, (i) when, (ii) under what circumstances, (iii) in what form; (zz) has the government assessed whether FATCA and its implementation would require changes to the ways in which tax information is currently shared with the US; (aaa) what has the government sought, or does the government plan to seek from the US, in terms of reciprocal information sharing as a result of the FATCA or IGA negotiations, and what is the current status of negotiations on this point; (bbb) what measures are in place to ensure that no privacy laws or policies are violated in any transfer of information contemplated in (aaa); and (ccc) by what process(es) and on what dates will any IGA and its enacting legislation be vetted for compliance with the (i) Constitution Act, 1867, (ii) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (iii) Canadian Bill of Rights?

Q-122² — October 28, 2013 — — With regard to scientific research and the communications policies of Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the National Research Council of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for each of these departments or agencies during the years (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, (vi) 2005, (vii) 2006, (viii) 2007, (ix) 2008, (x) 2009, (xi) 2010, (xii) 2011, (xiii) 2012, and (xiv) 2013: (a) how many total media inquiries were received; (b) how many total media inquiries were completed; (c) how many media inquiries relating to scientific issues were received; (d) how many media inquiries relating to scientific issues were completed; (e) how many media inquiries relating to scientific issues were completed within 24 hours of the initial request; (f) how many media requests for an interview with scientists were received; (g) how many media requests for an interview with scientists were denied by or did not receive approval from communications, media relations, or ministerial staff; (h) how many media requests for an interview with scientists were instead responded to by communications, media relations, or ministerial staff; (i) how many media interviews were given directly by scientists; (j) prior to how many media interviews in (i) were scientists required, instructed, or asked to use prepared responses or approved lines; (k) prior to how many media interviews in (i) were scientists required, instructed, or asked by communications, media relations, or ministerial staff to omit scientific information; (l) how many media interviews in (i) were also attended, observed, or recorded by communications, media relations, or ministerial staff; and (m) how many media interviews in (i) were completed within the requested deadline of the inquiring journalists?

Q-123² — October 28, 2013 — — With regard to the subsection of the 2013 Speech From The Throne entitled “Science and Technology”: (a) what accounting methodology was used to determine that, since 2006, the government “has invested more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies”; (b) was the figure of “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” adjusted for inflation since 2006; (c) was the figure of “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” given in current dollars or constant 2006 dollars; (d) if the figure was given in current dollars, what is the value of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” in current 2006 dollars; (e) how much of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” was spent during fiscal year (i) 2005-2006, (ii) 2006-2007, (iii) 2007-2008, (iv) 2008-2009, (v) 2009-2010, (vi) 2010-2011, (vii) 2011-2012, (viii) 2012-2013, and (ix) 2013-2014; (f) how much of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” was spent as part of the Stimulus Phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan between January 2009 and March 2012; (g) what is the complete and detailed spending breakdown of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” since 2006; (h) what portion of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” since 2006 was invested in basic, fundamental, or pure scientific research; (i) what portion of the “more than 9 billion dollars to support science, technology and innovative companies” since 2006 was invested in applied research, industrial research and development, or commercial applications; (j) what methodology was used to determine that “Canada now leads G-7 countries in post-secondary research investment”; (k) where does Canada rank among the countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in regard to “post-secondary research investment”; (l) has Canada’s ranking among OECD countries for “post-secondary research investment” increased or decreased since 2006; (m) during the most recent fiscal year for which comprehensive data is available, what percentage of Canada’s total “post-secondary research investment” was made by (i) the federal government, (ii) provincial and territorial governments, (iii) municipal governments, (iv) the private sector, (v) charities, (vi) individuals and households, (vii) other sources; (n) what was the government’s total expenditure on “post-secondary research investment,” in current dollars, during fiscal year (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) 2002-2003, (iv) 2003-2004, (v) 2004-2005, (vi) 2005-2006, (vii) 2006-2007, (viii) 2007-2008, (ix) 2008-2009, (x) 2009-2010, (xi) 2010-2011, (xii) 2011-2012, (xiii) 2012-2013, (xiv) 2013-2014; (o) what was the government’s total expenditure on “post-secondary research investment,” in constant 2006 dollars, during fiscal year (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) 2002-2003, (iv) 2003-2004, (v) 2004-2005, (vi) 2005-2006, (vii) 2006-2007, (viii) 2007-2008, (ix) 2008-2009, (x) 2009-2010, (xi) 2010-2011, (xii) 2011-2012, (xiii) 2012-2013, (xiv) 2013-2014; (p) what measures or outcomes is the government using to evaluate whether or not the “[t]ransformation of the National Research Council” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development”; (q) what empirical evidence does the government have that the “[t]ransformation of the National Research Council” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development”; (r) what was in the annual budget of the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP), in current dollars, during fiscal year (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) 2002-2003, (iv) 2003-2004, (v) 2004-2005, (vi) 2005-2006, (vii) 2006-2007, (viii) 2007-2008, (ix) 2008-2009, (x) 2009-2010, (xi) 2010-2011, (xii) 2011-2012, (xiii) 2012-2013, (xiv) 2013-2014; (s) what was in the annual budget of the IRAP, in constant 2006 dollars, during fiscal year (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) 2002-2003, (iv) 2003-2004, (v) 2004-2005, (vi) 2005-2006, (vii) 2006-2007, (viii) 2007-2008, (ix) 2008-2009, (x) 2009-2010, (xi) 2010-2011, (xii) 2011-2012, (xiii) 2012-2013, (xiv) 2013-2014; (t) what measures or outcomes is the government using to evaluate whether or not “doubling the Industrial Research Assistance Program” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development; (u) what empirical evidence does the government have that “doubling the Industrial Research Assistance Program” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development”; (v) what measures or outcomes is the government using to evaluate whether or not “the new Venture Capital Action Plan” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development”; (w) what empirical evidence does the government have that the “the new Venture Capital Action Plan” is effectively “helping to promote greater commercialization of research and development”; (x) on what date does the government expect to “release an updated Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy”; (y) will the government be conducting open consultations with the Canadian scientific, research, and academic communities prior to releasing “an updated Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy”; (z) what commitments did the government make as part of its previous Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy; (aa) which of the commitments in (z), if any, have not been met; (bb) what “targeted investments in science and innovation chains from laboratory to market in order to position Canada as a leader in the knowledge economy” has the government made since 2006; (cc) what measures or outcomes is the government using to evaluate whether or not its “targeted investments in science and innovation chains from laboratory to market” are effectively positioning Canada “as a leader in the knowledge economy”; (dd) what empirical evidence does the government have that its “targeted investments in science and innovation chains from laboratory to market” are effectively positioning Canada “as a leader in the knowledge economy”; (ee) what measures or investments has the government implemented since 2006 to “promote Canada as a world-class destination for international students”; (ff) how many international students have studied in Canada as a direct result of the measures or investments in (ee); and (gg) how many international students were studying at Canadian universities and colleges during calendar year (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, (vi) 2005, (vii) 2006, (viii) 2007, (ix) 2008, (x) 2009, (xi) 2010, (xii) 2011, (xiii) 2012, (xiv) 2013?

Q-124² — October 28, 2013 — — With regard to the Prime Minister’s undertaking to establish new mandatory reporting standards for Canadian extractive companies: (a) what steps has the government taken since the 39th G8 Summit to develop a comprehensive bill that would require Canadian companies to disclose any payments made to foreign governments; (b) what steps did the government take prior to the 39th G8 Summit to develop a comprehensive bill that would require Canadian companies to disclose any payments made to foreign governments; (c) does the Prime Minister’s commitment, as referred to in (a), apply exclusively to Canadian extractive corporations, (i) does it apply exclusively to Canadian corporations as regards extractive operations in foreign countries, (ii) what is the scope of said commitment; (d) has the government prepared or reviewed any draft bill that proposes to implement such reporting requirements as referred to in (a) and, if so, to what extent has it consulted on this issue, (i) with whom, (ii) when; (e) has the government conducted or reviewed any studies regarding the effect of mandatory reporting requirements on increasing corporate accountability and combatting corruption; (f) has the government compiled or reviewed any other evidence regarding the effect of mandatory reporting requirements on increasing corporate accountability and combatting corruption; (g) has the Department of Justice been consulted with regard to the formulation of a comprehensive reporting regime that would apply to Canadian companies; (h) has the government consulted with the Department of Justice, or sought a legal opinion from any other source, as to the constitutionality of a mandatory disclosure regime as referred to in (a); (i) has the government expressed any position, either publically or internally, as to the constitutionality of such a mandatory disclosure regime as applied to Canadian companies; (j) has the government consulted with provincial and territorial First Ministers regarding the Prime Minister’s commitment referred to in (a) and, if so, (i) who were the parties to any such consultations, (ii) what was the outcome of any such consultation; (k) has the government consulted with provincial securities regulators regarding the Prime Minister’s commitment referred to in (a) and, if so, (i) who were the parties to any such consultations, (ii) what was the outcome of any such consultation; (l) has the government consulted with oil, gas, or mining executives regarding the Prime Minister’s commitment referred to in (a) and, if so, (i) who were the parties to any such consultations, (ii) what was the outcome of any such consultation; (m) has the government consulted with representatives of First Nations regarding the Prime Minister’s commitment referred to in (a) and, if so, (i) who were the parties to any such consultations, (ii) what was the outcome of any such consultation; (n) regarding the Prime Minister’s commitment referred to in (a), does the government have any consultations currently planned with (i) the First Ministers of any provinces or territories, (ii) representatives of any First Nations, (iii) provincial securities regulators, (iv) Canadian corporate executives, (v) others; (o) has the issue of a mandatory reporting regime as referred to in (a) been raised in the context of the Canada-European Union (E.U.) trade negotiations and if so, (i) when and with whom was this issue raised, (ii) what was the outcome of these discussions; (p) does the government currently have a strategy in place to develop a mandatory reporting regime as referred to in (a) that is harmonized with such regimes as they exist in either the United States (U.S.) or the E.U. and (i) what are the details of this strategy, (ii) has the issue of a mandatory reporting regime as referred to in (a) been raised with American or E.U. officials at any time; (q) regarding the government’s recently announced extractive transparency partnerships with both Peru and Tanzania, what specific steps have or are being undertaken to ensure (i) the increased transparency of payments by Canadian extractive companies to these governments, (ii) the increased efficiency and transparency of mining royalty management by local and regional governments, (iii) the improvement of living conditions for communities located near extractive operations in foreign countries; (r) has the government begun the process of creating an “action plan on corporate transparency,” as per the Prime Minister’s commitment at the 39th G8 Summit; (s) does the action plan referred to in (p) include any proposed steps to (i) ensure consistent and up-to-date information on corporate beneficial ownership, (ii) prevent corrupt practices with regard to bribes to foreign governments, (iii) prevent money laundering, (iv) prevent tax evasion; (t) has the government conducted or reviewed any studies, or compiled or reviewed evidence from any other source, regarding the effect of corporate beneficial ownership on corrupt practices by Canadian multinational corporations, including but not limited to the paying of bribes by extractive corporations to foreign governments and, if so, (i) what specific studies have been conducted or reviewed and what are their conclusions, (ii) what other evidence has been compiled or reviewed and what does it indicate in this regard; (u) has the government engaged in any consultations or reviewed any relevant evidence regarding possible consequences of the sale of Canadian corporation Uranium One, Inc. to JSC Atomredmetzolo to (ARMZ), a Russian corporation, with respect to (i) any foreign assets previously held by Uranium One, Inc., (ii) the human rights and environmental concerns of populations living near foreign extractive operations previously under the control of Uranium One, Inc., (iii) the possible sale of uranium previously or potentially extracted by Uranium One, Inc. to countries currently within the scope of Canadian, U.S., E.U., or United Nations sanctions regimes; (v) has the government received any communications regarding the sale of Uranium One, Inc., (i) from government officials in the U.S., (ii) from government officials in any other country; and (w) has the government communicated any concerns to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or to any other U.S. government official or agency, regarding the sale of Uranium One, Inc.?

Q-125² — October 28, 2013 — — With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office: (a) how many records exist regarding the letter of understanding between the Prime Minister’s former Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, and Senator Mike Duffy regarding the payment of $90,127 to cover Senator Duffy’s living expenses; and (b) what are the details of each record?

Q-126² — October 28, 2013 — — With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, what are the details of the letter of understanding between the Prime Minister’s former Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, and Senator Mike Duffy regarding the payment of $90,127 to cover Senator Duffy’s living expenses?

Q-127² — October 28, 2013 — — With regard to the United States (U.S.) Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) when was the government first made aware of this legislation and how; (b) what steps has Canada taken since the legislation's introduction in the U.S., broken down by year; (c) during the consideration of this legislation in the U.S., did Canada make any representations to the U.S. government and if so, (i) when, (ii) by whom, (iii) to whom, (iv) on what dates, (v) by what authority (vi) with what desired effect (vii) and with what outcome; (d) how many individuals in Canada will be affected; (e) how was the figure in (d) calculated; (f) how many Canadian citizens residing in Canada are U.S. persons under FATCA; (g) how many Canadian permanent residents are U.S. persons under FATCA; (h) how many applications for permanent residency is Canada currently processing from persons who are or will be treated as U.S. persons under FATCA; (i) broken down by province and territory and status, how many persons in Canada are projected to be affected by FATCA; (j) how was the figure in (l) calculated; (k) how many Canadian financial institutions will be impacted by FATCA; (l) how was the figure in (k) calculated; (m) how many non-financial Canadian entities will be impacted by FATCA; (n) how was the figure in (m) calculated; (o) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on persons resident in Canada; (p) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on financial institutions; (q) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on non-financial entities; (r) what estimates and studies have been undertaken with respect to the consequences of a 30% withholding of U.S. sourced income to financial institutions; (s) when did the studies in (r) occur and what were their conclusions; (t) how much has been spent evaluating FATCA's impact on Canadians; (u) broken down by department, how was the figure in (r) determined; (v) what estimates have been undertaken with respect to FATCA's cost to implement for Canada and with what conclusions; (w) for the five years starting in 2014, how much is FATCA implementation expected to cost (i) Canada Revenue Agency, (ii) the department of Finance, (iii) the department of Justice, (iv) other government departments, agencies, boards, or tribunals; (x) broken down by year and cost from 2010-2020, what is the total financial impact of FATCA implementation expected to be on Canadian taxpayers; (y) how were the figures in (x) obtained; (z) what outside legal opinions has the government sought with respect to FATCA's compatibility with Canadian law; (aa) when were the opinions in (z) sought and at what expense; (bb) have unsolicited legal opinions been sent to the government regarding FATCA; (cc) how many opinions in (bb) has the government received, (i) on what dates, (ii) with what conclusions, (iii) with what impact on the Government's actions; (dd) has the government assessed the possibility of not acceding to FATCA in any way and, if so, with what conclusion and with what cost to Canada or to Canadians when compared to accession; (ee) how much has been spent on negotiations surrounding FATCA, broken down by year and expense; (ff) which individuals from the government have negotiated on Canada’s behalf regarding FATCA; (gg) what has the Minister of Finance's personal role been with respect to FATCA negotiations; (hh) what has the Minister of National Revenue's personal role been with respect to FATCA negotiations; (ii) what has the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ personal role been with respect to FATCA negotiations; (jj) what plans or strategies has Canada developed regarding enforcement of any FATCA related agreement with the United States; (kk) what penalties will there be for U.S. failure to meet any of its negotiated obligations; (ll) has the litigation risk regarding any FATCA implementation agreement been evaluated and, if so, (i) how, (ii), when, (iii), by what means; (mm) broken down by department and agency, and with specific record numbers and titles, what briefing materials and files have been developed regarding FATCA; (nn) what measures are in place to assess the lawfulness and legality of any implementation of FATCA in Canada; (oo) have any future public consultations with respect to FATCA implementation been planned and, if not, why not; (pp) what is the projected impact of FATCA on the Bank of Canada; (qq) what efforts has the government made with respect to informing financial institutions of their obligations under FATCA; (rr) what efforts has the government made with respect to informing non-financial entities of their obligations under FATCA; (ss) what efforts has the government made with respect to informing individuals residing in Canada of their obligations under FATCA; (tt) has Canadian non-compliance with FATCA been assessed as a possibility and, if so, to what extent; (uu) has FATCA been raised in discussions between Canada and countries other than the U.S. and, if so, (i) with which countries, (ii) at what level(s) did the discussion occur, (iii) on what dates, (iv) in what forum, (v) and with which individuals from Canada participating; (vv) have any studies or analysis taken place with respect to FATCA’s impact on immigration to Canada by persons subject to this legislation and, if so, with what conclusion; (ww) has the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. raised the issue of FATCA in any discussions and if so, (i) which discussions, (ii) on what dates, (iii) with what desired goal; (xx) has the American Ambassador to Canada raised the issue of FATCA in any discussions and if so, (i) which discussions, (ii) on what dates, (iii) with what outcome; (yy) has the government considered the correspondence of Peter Hogg regarding FATCA and if so, (i) with what impact on policy development, (ii) with what conclusion; and (zz) what steps will the government take to minimize any infringement of Canadian Charter rights by any implementation of FATCA?

Q-128² — October 29, 2013 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what programs does the Fish, Food and Allied Workers’ (FFAW) union administer for DFO; (b) does the FFAW have any contracts with DFO; (c) does the FFAW administer the Dockside Monitoring Program for DFO; (d) does the FFAW receive any money for administering this contract; (e) does the FFAW administer the Stewardship Fisheries for DFO; and (f) does the FFAW receive money for administering this contract?

Q-129² — October 29, 2013 — — With regard to the horse slaughter industry in Canada: (a) what is the government’s policy on requiring medical history on equine identity documents (EID) only for the last six months of a horse’s life, and not for an entire lifespan; (b) does the government have information on what happened to the meat from the racehorse Backstreet Bully, who had been administered several courses of a variety of banned medications throughout its lifetime, prior to being sold into the slaughter pipeline, and what are the details of Backstreet Bully’s EID and all other traceability documents and records; (c) does the government have information on what happened to the meat from the racehorse Silky Shark, who had been administered the drug phenylbutazone prior to being sold into the slaughter pipeline, and what are the details of Silky Shark’s EID and all other traceability documents and records; (d) what system is in place for owners to report the history of banned drugs they have administered to a horse that they previously owned, when they discover that a subsequent owner has sold that horse into the slaughter pipeline; (e) when such instances as mentioned in (d) are reported, and it is found that the meat was sold as human food, what system is in place to recall that meat from domestic and international retailers, (i) how many such instances have been reported, (ii) what were the results of the government’s investigations into these reports; (f) how does the government keep count of the number of horses being imported from the United States (U.S.) for slaughter; (g) how does the government explain the discrepancy between the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)/Agriculture Canada and U.S. Department of Agriculture figures; (h) what were the findings of the government’s investigation into the large numbers of emaciated horses arriving from the U.S. in 2011 destined for Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation slaughter plant, and what system has the government put in place to quell these importations; (i) what system has the government put in place to quell the loading and importation of near-term pregnant mares arriving into Canada from the U.S.; (j) what actions or procedures were taken by the government to address the potential biohazard noted in the June 2011 Verification Report by the plant inspector at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation slaughter plant, namely, that not only was blood visible to the naked eye but that there were improperly cleaned saw blades upon the resumption of horse slaughter following the slaughter of cattle; (k) how many racehorses (thoroughbreds and standardbreds) were processed at Canadian abattoirs in each of the years between 2007 to 2013, and how many of these horses were pregnant; (l) what number or percentage of horses currently being slaughtered have been raised expressly for human consumption, broken down by (i) Canadian horses, (ii) U.S. horses; (m) what is the overall value to the Canadian economy in terms of job numbers and contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by (i) the horse slaughter industry, (ii) the equine industry; (n) is there any regulatory requirement for veterinarians, prior to administering medications to horses, to question owners about the likelihood of them being sold into the slaughter pipeline for human consumption; (o) has the government engaged in discussions with U.S. officials with a view to implementing an equine passport or other system to record the medical history of all U.S horses beginning at birth and, if so, (i) what was the outcome of these discussions, (ii) on what dates did these discussions occur; (p) how many equine fatalities and injuries have occurred during the live shipment of horses from Canada to Japan while loading the animals onto aircraft or in flight, and what were the circumstances surrounding these fatalities and injuries, for the period January 1, 2008 to August 30, 2013; and (q) is it the government’s policy to make publicly available the names of all meat-processing companies that are licensed to export horsemeat, as well as the countries they are licensed to export to?

Q-130² — October 29, 2013 — — With regard to rail safety in Canada: (a) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways were permitted to operate with a single operator; (b) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways had permission to leave trains unattended for limited periods of time on main lines, with or without an idling locomotive; (c) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways had permission to leave trains unattended for limited periods of time on side lines, with or without an idling locomotive; (d) with regard to the railways in (b) and (c), under what specific conditions could the trains be left unattended; (e) what legislative or regulatory framework governs local emergency preparedness plans in the event of a rail accident; (f) with respect to the plans in (e), (i) who is responsible for creating and executing such plans, (ii) by whom are they audited, (iii) how often are they audited, (iv) against what criteria are they audited; (g) by whom and how often are municipalities through which freight trains pass provided with regular reports on (i) the state of local emergency preparedness in the event of a rail accident, (ii) the state and maintenance record of the railway lines within their borders, (iii) the materials, hazardous or not, that are transported through their jurisdiction; (h) if reports referred to in (g) are not provided, why not; (i) how many DOT-111 railway tank cars and DOD-112 tank cars are in use in Canada, for each year since 2006; (j) for each year since 2006, how many rolling-stock and track-safety inspectors were employed at Transport Canada, broken down by (i) province of work, (ii) oversight responsibility; (k) for each year since 2006, how many rolling-stock and track-safety inspectors employed by Transport Canada were responsible for inspections in (i) the Greater Montreal Area, (ii) the municipality of Pointe-Claire, (iii) the municipality of Beaconsfield, (iv) the municipality of Baie d’Urfé, (v) the municipality of Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue; (l) how frequently are railway tracks inspected in (i) populated areas, (ii) unpopulated ones; (m) since 2006, when have the rail tracks between downtown Montreal and the City of Vaudreuil-Dorion been inspected; (n) does Transport Canada have a system of evaluation in place, based on the results of inspections by its inspectors, that ranks the operational state of different sections of railway tracks; (o) with regard to the system in (n), if it exists, does this system or database correlate with allowable train speeds on each section of track and with which company owns each section; (p) for each year since 2006, how many freight train derailments, minor and major, have taken place in Canada, broken down by province; (q) with respect to the derailments in (p), how many took place on (i) a horizontal track, (ii) a sloping track, (iii) curved track, (iv) straight track; (r) for each year since 2006, how many cases of runaway freight trains have been reported in Canada, broken down by province; (s) for each year since 2006, how many train accidents, derailments or other, involving hazardous materials have there been; (t) how are the contents of rail cargo verified by the government or its agencies to determine if the contents conform to the contents labels/markings on the individual rail cars; (u) what is the process by which environmental risks of the transport by rail of oil and gas or other hazardous materials are assessed; (v) what quantity and type of goods are shipped annually by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific on lines that run through Montreal’s West Island in each of the last 5 years; (w) what are the allowable speeds for freight trains travelling different rail segments in the southwestern corridor of the island of Montreal from downtown Montreal to the city of Vaudreuil-Dorion; (x) with regard to the speed limits in (w), how is adherence to these limits monitored by Transport Canada; (y) with respect to the slowing of rail speed due to poor track conditions, how does Transport Canada verify that rail operators are implementing reduced speeds; (z) what is the slowest speed at which a rail operator will be allowed to operate its trains over a portion of track experiencing poor conditions before all traffic must be halted due to the poor track condition; and (aa) subsequent to the fatal accident in Lac-Mégantic, what plans are in place for reducing the speeds of freight trains passing through Canadian municipalities?

Q-131² — October 29, 2013 — — With regard to the Social Security Tribunal (SST): (a) how many appeals have been sent to the General Division level; (b) how many appeals have been heard; (c) how many appeals have been allowed; (d) how many appeals were summary dismissals; (e) how many appeals were dismissed; (f) how many appeals are pending; (g) what is the average time for appeals to be heard; (h) how many appeals are dealt with per month; (i) what proportion of appeals are heard within the SST's timelines; (j) is there a backlog of cases; (k) how many cases are waiting to be heard; (l) where are cases coming from by rural/urban, or geographic region; (m) what are the common issues being (i) heard, (ii) allowed, (iii) dismissed; (n) how many appellants were granted access to consult their case file ahead of a hearing by the General Division, (i) by number, (ii) as a proportion of all appellants at this level; (o) how many appellants were granted access to consult their case file ahead of a hearing by the Appeal Division (i) by number, (ii) as a proportion of all appellants at this level; (p) how are the cases being heard; (q) how many cases are heard via telephone; (r) how many questions and answers in person; (s) how many questions and answers via email; (t) has there been any feedback from SST members on the process; (u) what kind of training for SST members has been implemented; (v) given that SST members work from home, has any kind of networking system been put in place to support SST members; (w) given that decisions made by the Umpire and higher courts were provided in a jurisprudence library online, will the General Division or Appeals Division decisions be available in the jurisprudence library; and (x) will the more specific "Decisions Favourable to Workers" website be continued?

Q-132² — October 29, 2013 — — With regard to Employment lnsurance (EI) for fiscal years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of EI applications, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (b) what was the average EI applications processing time broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (c) how many applicants waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed. (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call Centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume of messages, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (f) what were the national service levEI standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by year; (g) what were the actual service levEI standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (h) what were the service standards for call backs by EI call centre agents broken, down by year; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (k) for EI processing centres, what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province (iii) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (l) for EI call centres, what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (m) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (n) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (i) year, (ii) for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; and (o) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year?

Q-133² — October 29, 2013 — — With regard to subsidies to rail operators for track repair and improvements: (a) what is the process for determining how funds are distributed; (b) for each year since 2006, what is the breakdown of the distribution of such funds, by rail operator; (c) were funds intended for the rail operator Montreal, Maine and Atlantic ever (i) withheld, (ii) reassigned to other operators; and (d) with regard to any funds mentioned in (c), for what reason were these withheld or reassigned?

Q-134² — October 29, 2013 — — With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS) in fiscal year 2012-2013: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much of the FTCS was spent on (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Aboriginal Canadians; and (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities?

Q-135² — October 30, 2013 — — With regard to the Respect for Communities Act: (a) how many of the following were consulted in the development of the legislation, (i) health care providers, (ii) front-line service providers, (iii) medical research professionals specializing in addictions treatment, (iv) medical research professionals specializing in concurrent mental health and addictions treatment, (v) police departments, (vi) police officers; (b) of the organizations mentioned in the answer to (a), who from each organization was involved; (c) over what time period did the consultations take place; (d) which ministries were involved in the development of the legislation; and (e) from those ministries listed in the answer to (d), who from each ministry was consulted?

Q-136² — October 30, 2013 — — On what date and in what manner did the government receive a payment from Senator Mike Duffy or his associates for expense claims?

Q-137² — October 30, 2013 — — With regard to the Port of Gros Cacouna (QC) breakwater repair: (a) what is the government funding provided, by department or agency, initiative and amount concerning the Port of Gros Cacouna breakwater repair; (b) was there a public tender; (c) what is the project start date; (d) what is the expected project completion date; (e) what is the total project value; (f) what are the specifications for the production of the stone required for the project; (g) who are the bidders for the production of stone; (h) what is the outcome of the tender for the production of stone; (i) what is the complete list of names of all individuals who were at the time of the tender directors of the winning bidder; (j) what is the complete list of names of all individuals who are currently directors of the winning bidder; (k) what are the technical explanations for the decision regarding the lack of stone density in the Cacouna region; (l) further to these investments, will the project to transfer the Port of Gros Cacouna be abandoned; and (m) will Transport Canada give a public presentation on the short-term planning regarding the Gros Cacouna port facilities?

Q-138² — October 31, 2013 — — With regard to jobs in the public service between May 2011 and September 2013, broken down by department, located in the ridings of (i) Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier, (ii) Charlesbourg–Haute-Saint-Charles, (iii) Louis-Hébert, (iv) Louis-Saint-Laurent, (v) Québec, (vi) Beauport–Limoilou: (a) how many positions were cut; and (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired?

Q-139² — October 31, 2013 — — With regard to Canadian Forces (CF) pensions: (a) for each of the last five years, how many people have been eligible to begin receiving a pension; (b) how many people have retired from the CF in the past year and have become eligible for a pension; (c) for the next five years, how many retirees are projected to become eligible for a pension; (d) what is the average amount of a monthly pension cheque; (e) how much money was spent on pensions for each of the last five years; (f) how much money is allotted for pensions for each of the next five years; (g) what is the process by which one applies for a pension; (h) between the last CF pay cheque and the first pension payment, how much time elapses, (i) what is the service standard for the department with regard to time lapses between the last pay cheque and the first payment, (ii) how is the service standard determined; (i) what are the current delays between the last pay cheque and first pension payment processed, broken down by province or territory; (j) what are the current delays between the last pay cheque and first pension payment processed, broken down by facility; (k) how many retirees have had to wait longer than 12 weeks for their first payment to be processed; (l) how many applications currently remain to be processed, broken down by province or territory; (m) how many applications currently remain to be processed, broken down by facility; (n) what steps are in place to mitigate any delay in processing pensions; (o) what additional procedures will be enacted to mitigate delays in processing pensions; (p) what studies have been undertaken with respect to the effects of delayed pension payment on former CF members; (q) what studies and analyses have been undertaken with respect to ensuring immediate processing and service of the pension payment; (r) with regard to the previously-mentioned studies and analyses, have any budget forecasts been prepared, and if so, (i) on what date, (ii) by whom, (iii) using what standard; (s) who is responsible for the administration of payment of pensions, (i) in what ways is the process reviewed, (ii) at what intervals is the process reviewed, (iii) by what standards is the process reviewed; (t) what is the average processing time per pension claim, broken down by province and territory; (u) what is the defined range of acceptable processing times, broken down by province and territory, (i) how is this timeline determined, (ii) by whom is this timeline determined, (iii) with what metrics is this timeline determined; (v) where is the payment of pensions processed and (i) by whom, (ii) with what qualifications for employment, (iii) how many are employed in said capacity, broken down by facility in the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013; (w) what consultations have taken place with the Veterans Ombudsman regarding timeliness of payment delivery; (x) what consultations have taken place with veterans groups regarding the timeliness of payment processing and delays; (y) what consultations are scheduled with veterans groups regarding the timeliness of payment processing; (z) with what individuals has the Minister of Veterans Affairs met regarding the issue of payment and processing for veterans pensions; (aa) with what individuals have officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs met regarding the issue of payment and processing for veterans pensions; (bb) what other government departments or agencies are involved with the processing of pensions and benefits and to what extent; (cc) broken down by month, how long on average have individuals waited in the last five years to receive their first pension cheque; (dd) what measures are in place to communicate delays in payment and processing of pensions to applicants; (ee) what specific statistics are tracked by the department with regard to applications for, processing of, and payment of pensions?

Q-140² — November 4, 2013 — — With regard to the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee established under the authority of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act: (a) what is the current list of committee members; (b) on what date were each of these members appointed or reappointed; (c) what is the term of appointment for each member, including dates; (d) what is the position on the committee of each member; (e) how many times has the committee met since its creation, (i) on which dates, (ii) in which locations; (f) what were the topics discussed at each meeting; (g) which meetings has the minister participated in, by phone or in person; (h) how many departmental staff are assigned to support the committee; (i) what is the budget provided for the committee; and (j) how much has the committee spent on travel and hospitality since its creation, broken down by year?

Q-141² — November 4, 2013 — — With regard to ministerial offices using private legal counsel, for each year from 2003 to 2013: (a) what is the dollar figure spent on such counsel per year per ministerial office, including the Prime Minister's Office (PMO); (b) for the figures referred to in (a), what is the breakdown (i) by minister, (ii) by staff member, (iii) by investigation or case; (c) for the investigations or cases referred to in (b), who are the lawyers or firms hired per case; (d) what studies has the government conducted as to what the comparable cost would be per year per ministerial office, including the PMO, if legal counsel were kept in-house, and what are the results of those studies; (e) has legal counsel been retained in the matter of the involvement of ministerial offices (including the PMO) in Senate affairs, and, if so, what is the cost of that counsel broken down (i) by ministerial office (including the PMO) per year, (ii) by minister and staff member, (iii) by investigation or case; and (f) of the investigations or cases referred to in (e)(iii), (i) who are the private lawyers or firms hired per case, (ii) how many lawyers have been retained per office and per case?

Q-142² — November 5, 2013 — — With regard to the loss or theft of “weapons and accessories” in the Department of National Defence (DND) as reported in the Public Accounts of Canada, for each year between 2006 and 2013: (a) which weapons and accessories were lost by DND due to an offense or other illegal act, broken down by (i) weapon or accessory, (ii) individual cost to the government for each item lost; and (b) which weapons and accessories were lost by the DND due to accidental loss, destruction, or damage, broken down by (i) weapon or accessory, (ii) individual cost to the government for each item lost?

Q-143² — November 5, 2013 — — With regard to the government's spending for fiscal years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013, what are the spending levels (i) by program activity, (ii) for each program activity, by standard object?

Q-144² — November 6, 2013 — — With regard to the government’s policy on fully autonomous weapons and autonomous robotics systems: (a) has the Department of National Defense (DND) provided financing, logistical assistance, or any other means of support for the research and development of fully autonomous weapons; (b) has DND provided financing, logistical assistance, or any other means of support for the research and development of autonomous robotic systems; (c) has DND awarded any contracts to develop or contribute to the development of autonomous robotic systems, and, if so, (i) what is the value of each contract, (ii) what entity was awarded each contract, (iii) what were the objective, terms, and conditions of each contract, (iv) what controls were put in place to prevent the future weaponization of this research; (d) has the government entered into any agreements with universities or research institutes in Canada to study or develop autonomous robotic systems, and, if so, for each respective agreement, (i) what is the value of the government’s contribution, (ii) with which entity was the agreement signed, (iii) what were the objective, terms, and conditions of the agreement, (iv) what controls were put in place to prevent the future weaponization of this research; (e) do DND or the Canadian Forces (CF) have written policies, regulations, rules, or guidelines on the use of robotics by DND or CF, and, if so, what are those policies, regulations, rules, or guidelines; (f) do DND or CF have written policies, regulations, rules, or guidelines on the use of fully autonomous weapons by DND or CFs, and, if so, what are those policies, regulations, rules, or guidelines; and (g) what steps has the government taken in applying Article 36 of Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions (new weapons), in regard to funding, research, developing and testing of new weapons systems?

Q-145² — November 6, 2013 — — With regard to the Privy Council Office, and to the following documents: an e-mail, dated December 4, 2012, between Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy, tabled in the Senate on October 28, 2013 as Sessional Paper No. 2/41-112S; e-mail correspondence, dated February 11, 2013, between Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright, tabled in the Senate on October 28, 2013 as Sessional Paper No. 2/41-113S; an e-mail, dated May 15, 2013, between Senator Duffy and Chris Woodcock, referred to on the CBC News Network program “Power and Politics” on October 28, 2013, and published on the program's web site; and the statements made in the Senate by Senator Michael Duffy on October 28, 2013: (a) does the Access to Information Directorate of the Privy Council Office still conclude that no records exist with regard to Access to Information requests A-2013-00231, A-2013-00232, A-2013-00233, A-2013-00075, A-2013-00076, A-2013-00077, A-2013-00080, A-2013-00085, A-2013-00099, A-2013-00101, A-2013-00103, A-2013-00104, A-2013-00105, A-2013-00106, A-2013-00113, A-2013-00114, A-2013-00116, A-2013-00120, A-2013-00125, A-2013-00126, A-2013-00131, A-2013-00132, A-2013-00139, and A-2012-00751; (b) will the Directorate re-examine the handling of those requests in light of the new information outlined above; (c) did the Privy Council Office formerly hold records which would have satisfied one or more of those requests; (d) if so, were the records transferred, removed, or destroyed; (e) if transferred or removed, to whose custody or control were they transferred or removed; and (f) if destroyed, when were they destroyed, on what date or dates was the destruction approved, and what is the file number of any order, instruction, directive, or authorization concerning their transfer, removal, or destruction?

Q-146² — November 7, 2013 — — With regard to the total expenditure of the government, incurred by all departments, defending against Aboriginal rights claims made against the government, and appealing against case decisions upholding Aboriginal rights in court: for each fiscal year from 2002-2003 to the current fiscal year, (a) what was the actual amount spent on these activities; and (b) what was the amount budgeted to be spent on these activities?

Q-147² — November 14, 2013 — — With regard to the report by Caroline Desbiens, the lawyer mandated in June 2012 by the Minister of Transport to investigate the notices of objection to the proposal to repeal the Laurentian Pilotage Authority District No. 3 Regulations: (a) when is the report scheduled to be released; (b) which groups and individuals did Ms. Desbiens consult as part of her investigation; and (c) how many submissions or written notices have been sent to Ms. Desbiens?

Q-148² — November 18, 2013 — — With regard to fast-start climate change commitments made by the government in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord: (a) what analysis does or has the government used to analyze the results of funded projects; (b) when will the government announce its financial plans for fulfilling climate change mitigation and adaptation commitments to developing countries past the 2012-2013 fiscal year; (c) what are the conditions necessary for the government to renew its contribution of public funding in support of the 2020 goal, committed to under the Copenhagen Accord, to mobilize up to $100 billion per year in financing by 2020; (d) what public funds will the government commit to fulfill its climate finance pledges between the fiscal year 2012-2013 and 2020-2021, broken down by year; (e) broken down by year, (i) what amount (in Canadian dollars) and what percentage of the funds referred to in (d) will be delivered as loans, (ii) what amount (in Canadian dollars) and what percentage of these funds will be delivered as grants; (f) has the government done any analysis of the social and economic impacts and benefits of loans versus grants for recipients; (g) what will be the percentage of funds allocated to mitigation, compared to funds allocated to adaptation to climate change, between the fiscal years 2012-2013 and 2020-2021; (h) how will future climate change mitigation and adaptation financing meet the requirements for Canadian official development assistance under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, namely with respect to poverty reduction, taking account of the perspectives of the poor, and the promotion of human rights; and (i) with respect to future climate finance funding delivered as loans or grants to multilateral banks, how will the government ensure that projects receiving funds meet the required aid effectiveness principles?

Q-149² — November 19, 2013 — — With regard to Canada Summer Jobs: (a) for each year from 2010-2013, what have been the criteria used to evaluate applications for Canada Summer Jobs funding; (b) for each year from 2010-2013, what was the total amount of Canada Summer Jobs funding awarded to applications in Vancouver East, listed by organizations; and (c) what is the total amount of funding allocated for Vancouver East applications through the Canada Summer Jobs funding for the summer of 2014?

Q-150² — November 20, 2013 — — With regard to Service Canada Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan call centres for fiscal years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of calls received by these centres, broken down (i) by year, (ii) by province or region, (iii) for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (b) what was the number of calls that received a high volume message, broken down (i) by year, (ii) by province or region, (iii) for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (c) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent, broken down by year; (d) what were the actual service level standards achieved for calls answered by an agent, broken down (i) by year, (ii) by province or region, (iii) for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (e) what were the national service level standards for call-backs, broken down by year; (f) what were the actual service level standards achieved for call-backs, broken down (i) by year, (ii) by province or region, (iii) for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (g) what was the average number of days for a call-back by an agent, broken down (i) by year, (ii) by province or region, (iii) for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; and (h) what was the number and percentage of term employees and of indeterminate employees respectively, broken down (i) by year, (ii) by province or region, (iii) for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month?

Q-151² — November 22, 2013 — — With regard to government spending on family planning initiatives: (a) what is the total amount of funding that has been disbursed so far as part of the Muskoka Initiative, broken down by specific category or initiative; (b) what is the amount of funding allocated for family planning that has been disbursed so far as part of the Muskoka Initiative, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by specific category or initiative; (c) how will the government spend the $58 million allocated to family planning as part of the Muskoka Initiative between 2012 and 2015; (d) what will be the government's overall spending on sexual and reproductive health between 2012 and 2015; and (e) how does the government intend to meet its 10% Official Development Assistance commitment to sexual and reproductive health, as agreed to at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development?

Q-152² — November 25, 2013 — — With regard to the loss of honey bee colonies in Canada: (a) what are the results of the joint study led by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) under Health Canada; (b) what international partners is PMRA consulting in the re-evaluation of neonicotinoid pesticides; (c) how many currently registered products contain at least one of the three neonicotinoids under re-evaluation by PMRA; (d) what is the volume of neonicotinoids used every year in Canada, expressed in litres, and on which crops are they used; (e) what plans does Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada currently have in place should there be more incidents of mass honey bee losses; (f) how many mass honey bee loss incidents have been reported in (i) 2008, (ii) 2009, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2011, (v) 2012, (vi) 2013 thus far, broken down by province; (g) when is the final joint study by CFIA and PMRA going to be completed; (h) what stakeholders were consulted for the joint study; (i) do Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Health Canada have an official response to the European Commission’s decision to place a moratorium on neonicotinoid pesticides; and (j) what written questions have been asked in Parliament on this issue?

Q-153² — November 25, 2013 — — With regard to imported spent fowl products: (a) how many Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) agents are trained to identify the difference between spent fowl and other chicken products which are imported; (b) how many Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) staff are trained to identify the difference between spent fowl and other chicken products which are imported; (c) what tests do CFIA or CBSA staff carry out to distinguish between spent fowl and imported chicken meat; (d) how many kilograms of spent fowl were imported into Canada in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012; (e) how many kilograms of spent fowl were imported into Canada, from the United States in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012; (f) how many kilograms of spent fowl were imported into Ontario from the United States in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012; and (g) what plans does Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada currently have to change the labelling of spent fowl to distinguish it from other chicken products?

Q-154² — November 26, 2013 — — With regard to the letters that Health Canada mailed to over 40 000 participants in the current medical marihuana access program (MMAP), which disclosed their personal address information on an envelope marked as being from the MMAP: (a) what are the standard protocols governing the communication of changes to medical programs from Health Canada, and what laws or regulations govern these protocols; (b) which branch and department is responsible for mailing out correspondence about the MMAP; (c) how many full-time employees and managers were involved in communicating the MMAP changes in this mail-out; (d) what protocols are followed once a breach of privacy has occurred; (e) what were all of the steps taken when this MMAP privacy breach occurred in November 2013; (f) were the changes that were made to the MMAP subject to a privacy impact assessment; and (g) was that assessment reviewed with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner?

Q-155² — November 27, 2013 — — With regard to ministerial offices outside of the National Capital Region: (a) what is the rationale for operating these offices; (b) what criteria are used to determine the location of the offices; (c) what branches or programs are operated out of the offices; (d) what is the name and purpose of each office, broken down by region and province; (e) what is the address and location of each office; (f) what are the annual costs of operating each office for each of the past five years; and (g) what is the number of (i) full-time staff, (ii) temporary staff, in each office?

Q-156² — November 27, 2013 — — With regard to the files of people with cancer who were subject to removal orders, from 2006 to 2013, under the responsibility of Dr. Patrick Thériault, a doctor with Citizenship and Immigration Canada in Ottawa: (a) how many such cases have there been, broken down by year; (b) of the cases mentioned in (a), (i) how many stays of removal were granted, (ii) what were the time frames for these stays, broken down by year, (iii) what reasons were given to justify granting each stay; (c) of the cases mentioned in (a), (i) how many stays of removal were not granted, broken down by year, (ii) what reasons were given to justify not granting each stay; (d) what are the names of the cancer treatment services Dr. Thériault called upon, broken down by (i) year, (ii) date, (iii) method Dr. Thériault used to contact these services; (e) did Dr. Thériault exchange emails with cancer treatment services in Canada regarding the cases mentioned in (a) and, if so, what are the details; and (f) did Dr. Thériault exchange emails with medical services in the country of origin of the cases mentioned in (a) and, if so, what are the details?

Q-157² — November 27, 2013 — — With regard to the files of people with cancer who were subject to removal orders from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), from 2006 to 2013: (a) how many such cases have there been, broken down by year; (b) of the cases mentioned in (a), (i) how many stays of removal were granted, (ii) what were the time frames for these stays, broken down by year, (iii) what reasons were given to justify granting each stay; (c) of the cases mentioned in (a), (i) how many stays of removal were not granted, broken down by year, (ii) what reasons were given to justify not granting each stay; and (d) how many CIC physicians are assigned to this type of file, and what are their names?

Q-158² — December 2, 2013 — — With regard to occupation of the former Embassy of the United States of America, located directly across from Parliament Hill at 100 Wellington Street, and its annex at 128 Wellington Street, which are listed on the Treasury Board of Canada website as “fully occupied”: (a) by whom are the buildings occupied; (b) since when have they occupied the building and annex; (c) how long is the lease for the building and annex; and (d) for what purposes are they occupying the building and annex?

Q-159² — December 2, 2013 — — With regard to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and its network of regional offices past and present: (a) how many full-time employees and administrators have worked there in the past 10 years, broken down by year and regional office; (b) how many part-time employees and administrators have worked there in the past 10 years, broken down by year and regional office; (c) how many contract employees have worked there in the past 10 years, broken down by year and regional office; (d) how many days of sick leave have employees taken in the past 10 years, broken down by year and regional office; (e) how many full-time employees and administrators have taken retirement in the past 10 years, broken down by year and by regional office; (f) how many full-time employees and administrators have left for reasons other than retirement in the past 10 years, broken down by year and by regional office; (g) how many part-time employees have taken retirement in the past 10 years, broken down by year and by regional office; and (h) how many part-time employees have left for reasons other than retirement in the past 10 years, broken down by year and by regional office?

Q-160² — December 3, 2013 — — With regard to the City of Hamilton's legal action against the government over the environmental assessment of the Red Hill Creek Expressway: (a) what is the amount of money spent by the government on this action to date; (b) what is the current status of the legal action; and (c) which documents filed with the court from either party can be accessed by the public and made available?

Q-161² — December 3, 2013 — — With regard to violent incidents related to overcrowding in federal prisons: (a) for each of the ten years from 2003-2004 to 2012-2013, and for each of the nine maximum security Correctional Services Canada (CSC) institutions, namely, Atlantic Institution, Donnacona Institution, Port-Cartier Institution, Quebec Regional Reception Centre and Special Handling Unit, Kingston Penitentiary, Millhaven Institution, Edmonton Institution, Saskatchewan Penitentiary maximum security unit, and Kent Institution, what were the numbers of inmates; (b) for each of the ten years from 2003-2004 to 2012-2013, and for each of the nine maximum security CSC institutions, namely, Atlantic Institution, Donnacona Institution, Port-Cartier Institution, Quebec Regional Reception Centre and Special Handling Unit, Kingston Penitentiary, Millhaven Institution, Edmonton Institution, Saskatchewan Penitentiary maximum security unit, and Kent Institution, what were the rated capacities of each institution; (c) if each of the 90 data points in part (a) is denoted by n_ij where i=1,10 runs over the ten years and j=1,9 runs over the nine institutions in the order given, and if each of the 90 data points in part (b) is denoted by c_ij, where i=1,10 runs over the ten years and j=1,9 runs over the nine institutions in the order given, then what are the values of the fractional excess of inmates over the rated capacity of each of the nine institutions, for each of the ten years, namely, fn_ij = (n_ij - c_ij)/c_ij; (d) for each of the ten years from 2003-2004 to 2012-2013, and for each of the nine maximum security CSC institutions, namely, Atlantic Institution, Donnacona Institution, Port-Cartier Institution, Quebec Regional Reception Centre and Special Handling Unit, Kingston Penitentiary, Millhaven Institution, Edmonton Institution, Saskatchewan Penitentiary maximum security unit, and Kent Institution, what were the numbers of violent incidents; (e) if the 90 data points in part (d) are denoted v_ij, where i=1,10 runs over the ten years and j=1,9 runs over the nine institutions in the order given, what are the average numbers of violent incidents for each institution, averaged over the ten years, namely, V^avg_j =(Σ_i=1,10 v_ij)/10; (f) what are the values of the fractional excesses of violent incidents for each of the nine institutions, over and above each institution's respective ten year average, for each of the ten years, namely, fv_ij = (v_ij - V^avg_j)/V^avg_j; (g) what is the correlation between the fractional excesses of violent incidents and the fractional excesses of inmates over the rated capacity, for all combinations of years and institutions, for which the inmate population was more than 10% over the rated capacity, namely, the sample correlation coefficient between the set of all fn_ij such that fn_ij > 0.1, and the corresponding members of the set of all fv_ij such that fn_ij > 0.1; and (h) what is the graph of all the pairs (fn_ij, fv_ij) which satisfy fn_ij > 0.1, plotted with the linear regression line?

Q-162² — December 3, 2013 — — With regard to Industry Canada’s “More Choices” campaign, relating to the government’s upcoming auction of the 700MHz spectrum, what is the total spending by the government for online or web advertising through (i) Facebook, (ii) Twitter, (iii) Google, (iv) Yahoo, (v) Bing, (vi) Bell-Globe Media, (vii) Rogers Communications, (viii) PostMedia, (ix) Toronto Star, (x) Sun Media, (xi) Shaw Communications, (xii) Huffington Post Canada, (xiii) other websites, broken down by distinct URL?

Q-163² — December 3, 2013 — — With regard to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act (CATSA): (a) how many aerodromes have submitted a request to be added to the schedule of the CATSA Aerodrome Designation Regulations since 2002, broken down by year; (b) which aerodromes have submitted a request to be added to the schedule of the CATSA Aerodrome Designation Regulations since 2002, broken down by year; (c) what criteria must be met for an aerodrome to be added to the schedule of the CATSA Aerodrome Designation Regulations; and (d) since 2002, have there been any changes to the criteria for assessing a request to be added to the schedule of the CATSA Aerodrome Designation Regulations and, if so, (i) what criteria have been added, (ii) what criteria have been removed?

Q-164² — December 4, 2013 — — With regard to the $14 million referred to by Mr. Terrance McAuley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Programs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, in the following comments made at the February 5, 2013, meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on the case of Canadians with secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein, “That project is virtually complete now… We have gone through the list and we have conducted 47 audits and identified $22.4 million in outstanding tax from a base of approximately $100 million in raw assets. From that, we are now in the process… we have finished collecting approximately $8 million of that. With respect to the balance, roughly $14 million is currently before the courts.”: (a) how many cases does that represent; (b) how many of these assessments were appealed; (c) what are the dates when each appeal was filed; and (d) in what courts were these appeals filed?

Q-165² — December 5, 2013 — — With regard to (41-2) Q-42, (41-1) Q-1057, and all other Order Paper questions in the 41st Parliament that the government has only partially answered or not answered at all, for the government as a whole and broken down by department: (a) in terms of staff time required to answer a question, does the government consider the following numbers of hours to be higher than the number beyond which it will refuse to answer a question: (i) 1-40 hours, (ii) 41-80 hours, (iii) 81-120 hours, (iv) 121-160 hours, (v) 161-200 hours, (vi) 201-300 hours, (vii) 301-500 hours, (viii) 501-1000 hours, (ix) 1001-2000 hours, (x) 2001-5000 hours, (xi) 5001-10000 hours, (xii) 10001-20000 hours, (xiii) more than 20000 hours; b) in terms of cost expended to answer a question, does the government consider the following costs to be higher than the number beyond which it will refuse to answer a question: (i) $1-$100, (ii) $101-$500, (iii) $501-$1,000, (iv) $1,001-$1,500, (v) $1,501-$2,000, (vi) $2,001-$2,500, (vii) $2,501-$3,000, (viii) $3,001-$3,500, (ix) $3,501- $4,000, (x) $4,001-$5,000, (xi) $5,001-$7,500, (xii) $7,501-$10,000, (xiii) $10,001-$20,000, (xiv) $20,001-$50,000, (xv) $50,001-$100,000, (xvi) $100,001-$500,000, (xvii) $500,001-$1,000,000, and (xviii) more than $1,000,000; (c) for each Order Paper question that the government has only partially answered or not answered at all, (i) what was the anticipated cost in staff time and money, (ii) by how much did this exceed the tolerance for answering the question in time and money; and (d) for each Order Paper question that the government has only partially answered or not answered at all, (i) how many days did it take for the government to conclude the question could not or could only partially be answered, (ii) how many days prior to the answer being tabled in the House was this conclusion reached?

Q-166² — December 5, 2013 — — With regard to the snowmobile protests that took place in Terra Nova National Park between January 2010 and December 2011 and all events and circumstances related to these protests, what are the details of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, or other written material pertaining to these events, including those relating to any related Access to Information requests?

Q-167² — December 5, 2013 — — With regard to the legal action taken by the 2005 government against Canadian National (CN) about respecting agreements for maintaining the Quebec Bridge, which has since split into two lawsuits: (a) what were the legal costs, broken down by year, for both lawsuits from 2005 to today; (b) what portion of the amount spent on legal fees for these lawsuits was spent on accommodation, travel and meals; (c) what firms are defending or have defended the government in these two lawsuits against CN; (d) what is the average hourly rate charged by the firms representing the government during the CN lawsuits; (e) what is the total number of hours billed to the government between 2005 and today, broken down by year; and (f) what are the projected annual budgets in the years ahead for the lawsuits against CN?

Q-168² — December 5, 2013 — — With regard to National Defence, what are the details of the projects which will be funded by the $107 million which has been allocated for planned investments in infrastructure at 5 Wing Goose Bay, as referred to in the government’s response to Q-61 in the current session of Parliament?

Q-169² — December 5, 2013 — — With regard to the Canadian Initiative for the Economic Diversification of Communities Reliant on Chrysotile: (a) how many private businesses have applied for repayable loans to date and what are these businesses; (b) what are the amounts of the repayable loans extended to private businesses to date, broken down by business; (c) how many business support organizations have applied for grants to date and what are these organizations; (d) what are the amounts granted to business support organizations to date, broken down by business support organization; (e) how many non-profit organizations have applied for grants to date and what are these organizations; (f) what are the amounts granted to non-profit organizations to date, broken down by organization; (g) how many municipalities and regional county municipalities (RCMs) have applied for grants to date and what are these municipalities and RCMs; and (h) what are the amounts granted to municipalities and RCMs to date, broken down by municipality and RCM?

Q-170² — December 6, 2013 — — With regard to the victims' surcharge: (a) for each of the last ten years, broken down by province and year; how much was collected; (b) broken down by program and service, how was the money in (a) spent; (c) broken down by province and year, in what percent of cases was a surcharge imposed; (d) since the enactment of the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act (IOAVA), how much, broken down by province and territory, has been collected; (e) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government given to victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (f) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government transferred to provinces for victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (g) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, in how many cases did a judge provide more than 20 years for surcharge repayment; (h) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, what were the mean, median, mode, and value of surcharges collected; (i) since the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, what were the mean, median, and mode, and value of surcharges collected; (j) since the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government given to victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (k) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in what specific cases, broken down by province, has a surcharge not been imposed; (l) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in what specific cases, broken down by province, has the collection of a surcharge been delayed more than 20 years; (m) prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases was the constitutionality of the surcharge challenged; (n) prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases did the Crown appeal on a matter solely related to the amount of the surcharge; (o) prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases did the Crown appeal on a matter solely related to the imposition of the surcharge; (p) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases did the Crown appeal on a matter solely related to the amount of the surcharge; (q) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases did the Crown appeal on a matter solely related to the imposition of the surcharge; (r) prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, in what circumstances did the Crown refer the matter of surcharge collection to a collection agency; (s) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in what circumstances has the Crown referred the matter of surcharge collection to a collection agency; (t) who was consulted with respect to the mandatory nature of the surcharge occasioned by the enactment of the IOAVA; (u) with respect to the IOAVA, were judges consulted, and if so, (i) to what extent, (ii) on what dates, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what outcome(s); (v) with respect to the IOAVA, were defense counsels consulted, and if so, (i) to what extent, (ii) on what dates, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what outcome(s); (w) with respect to the IOAVA, were Crown counsels consulted, and if so, (i) to what extent, (ii) on what dates, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what outcome(s); (x) did the government have any evidence to suggest judges would not delay the collection of surcharges upon enactment of the IOAVA; (y) did the government have any evidence to suggest judges would not reduce fines imposed upon enactment of the IOAVA; (z) since the IOAVA came into force, how many cases is the government currently appealing or did it appeal, broken down by province and with style of cause provided, in matters related to fine or surcharge imposition or collection; (aa) of the cases in (z), what offence was committed; (bb) of the cases in (z), what amount of fine was imposed; (cc) of the cases in (z), what amount of surcharge is to be imposed; (dd) of the cases in (z), what timeline for surcharge repayment was provided; (ee) of the cases in (z), how much is expected to be spent on the government’s appeal; (ff) of the cases in (z), what specific victims can be identified; (gg) of the cases in (z), in what way would victims be aided by the imposition of the surcharge; (hh) for the next fiscal year, how much is projected to be gained through the victims' surcharge, broken, down by province; (ii) for the next fiscal year, how much is to be transferred by the government to the provinces for victims' services; (jj) for the next fiscal year, how much is to be provided by the government directly for the provisions of victims' services; (kk) what are the specific services or programs in (jj) and how were they selected; (ll) what is the projected amount that victims' services will require to be fully funded in the next fiscal year; (mm) what requests for funding for victims' services has the government received for the next fiscal year; (nn) in what form(s) did the requests in (mm) come; (oo) how many of the requests in (mm) have been fulfilled or will be fulfilled, and by what amounts; (pp) what specific measures is government adopting, broken down by province and territory, to ensure fully funded victims' services; (qq) what specific benefits and objectives are sought through the surcharge that could not be sought through direct funding of victims' services or additional transfers to the provinces; (rr) are the benefits in and objectives in (qq) quantifiable, and if so, what are the most recent pieces of evidentiary proof that said benefit or objective is being achieved; (ss) how are the benefits and objectives in (qq) being evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the surcharge; (tt) has any direct correlation between offender deterrence and victim surcharge imposition been observed and, if so, what is it and by what measure was it determined; (uu) has any direct correlation between recidivism and victim surcharge imposition been observed and, if so, what is it and by what measure was it determined; (vv) is there any direct correlation observed between the collection of the victims' surcharge and the rate of victimization and, if so, what is it and by what measure was it determined; (ww) what additional policies are in place to ensure the timely and full funding for the provisions of victims' services; (xx) what measures are in place to ensure the timely and full funding for the provisions of victims' services should the mandatory surcharge be found unconstitutional; (yy) how will it be ensured that no victim will suffer as a consequence of litigation relating to the imposition or collection of the victim’s surcharge; (zz) how will it be ensured that the victims' surcharge is effective and (i) by what measures is it being evaluated, (ii) with what frequency, (iii) by whom; (aaa) what other metrics does the government track with respect to the victims' surcharge; (bbb) how much has been spent on the victims' surcharge program since its first inception; (ccc) during the development of the IOAVA, how was accountability defined and how is it measured; (ddd) does the victim's surcharge increase offenders' accountability for victims, and if so, how and by what measure; (eee) how does the government define “victimless crime”; (fff) is imposition of the victims' surcharge appropriate in cases of “victimless crime”; (ggg) to whom would the victims' surcharge fees go in in cases of “victimless crime”; (hhh) during the policy development of the IOAVA, what considerations were given to “victimless crime” and how was it determined to make the surcharge applicable in such cases?


² Response requested within 45 days