;

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

41st PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Journals No. 35 Monday, January 27, 2014 11:00 a.m.

Prayers

Vacancies

The Speaker informed the House that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in the House of Commons, for the Electoral District of Fort McMurray—Athabasca, in the Province of Alberta, by reason of the resignation of Mr. Brian Jean, and that, pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, he had addressed, on Friday, January 17, 2014, his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy.

Board of Internal Economy

Pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, sbs. 50(4), the Speaker informed the House that Mr. Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine) has been appointed a member of the Board of Internal Economy to replace Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley).

Private Members' Business

At 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas), seconded by Ms. Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles), — That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to recommend changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing petitions so as to establish an electronic petitioning system that would enhance the current paper-based petitions system by allowing Canadians to sign petitions electronically, and to consider, among other things, (i) the possibility to trigger a debate in the House of Commons outside of current sitting hours when a certain threshold of signatures is reached, (ii) the necessity for no fewer than five Members of Parliament to sponsor the e-petition and to table it in the House once a time limit to collect signatures is reached, (iii) the study made in the 38th Parliament regarding e-petitions, and that the Committee report its findings to the House, with proposed changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing petitions, within 12 months of the adoption of this order. (Private Members' Business M-428)

The debate continued.

The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, January 29, 2014, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business.

Statement by the Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 94(1)(a), the Speaker announced that the deferred recorded divisions on Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (order-making power), and Bill C-513, An Act to promote and strengthen the Canadian retirement income system, scheduled for Wednesday, December 11, 2013, are further deferred to Wednesday, January 29, 2014, immediately before the time provided for Private Member's Business.

Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Ambrose (Minister of Health), seconded by Mrs. Yelich (Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)), — That Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security;

And of the motion of , seconded by , — That this question be now put.

The debate continued.

Statements By Members

Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements.

Certificates of Election

The Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election of Mr. Dubourg (Bourassa).

Mr. Dubourg (Bourassa), having taken and subscribed the oath required by law, took his seat in the House.

The Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election of Mr. Falk (Provencher).

Mr. Falk (Provencher), having taken and subscribed the oath required by law, took his seat in the House.

The Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election of Ms. Freeland (Toronto Centre).

Ms. Freeland (Toronto Centre), having taken and subscribed the oath required by law, took her seat in the House.

The Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election of Mr. Maguire (Brandon—Souris).

Mr. Maguire (Brandon—Souris), having taken and subscribed the oath required by law, took his seat in the House.

Oral Questions

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House proceeded to Oral Questions.

Ways and Means

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), at the request of Mr. Flaherty (Minister of Finance), an Order of the Day was designated for the consideration of a Ways and Means motion for a Budget presentation on Tuesday, February 11, 2014, at 4:00 p.m.

Daily Routine Of Business

Tabling of Documents

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, as amended on October 3, 2006 and on November 12, 2007, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated June 27, 1989. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-412-16.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated March 27, 2006. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-412-17.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, as revised at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and at Geneva on May 13, 1977, and amended on September 28, 1979, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated June 15, 1957. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-412-18.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated July 2, 1999. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-412-19.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Patent Law Treaty, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated June 1, 2000. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-412-20.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Document entitled "Canadian Security Intelligence Service: Public Report" for the fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13. — Sessional Paper No. 8525-412-13.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:

— Nos. 412-0247, 412-0253, 412-0358, 412-0391, 412-0460, 412-0464, 412-0473, 412-0543, 412-0552, 412-0592, 412-0644 and 412-0665 concerning navigable waters. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-24-05;

— No. 412-0251 concerning nuclear weapons. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-62-04;

— No. 412-0254 concerning service medals. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-88-01;

— Nos. 412-0260, 412-0351, 412-0399, 412-0449, 412-0463, 412-0532 and 412-0559 concerning funding aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-22-06;

— Nos. 412-0277, 412-0357, 412-0466, 412-0471, 412-0523, 412-0549, 412-0565, 412-0576, 412-0577 to 412-0582, 412-0593, 412-0596 to 412-0598, 412-0624, 412-0625, 412-0640 and 412-0642 concerning the mining industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-28-04;

— No. 412-0324 concerning advertising. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-89-01;

— Nos. 412-0327 and 412-0602 concerning environmental assessment and review. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-9-03;

— No. 412-0328 concerning correctional facilities. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-90-01;

— Nos. 412-0329, 412-0401 and 412-0643 concerning working conditions. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-87-02;

— Nos. 412-0330, 412-0402, 412-0524, 412-0610 and 412-0613 concerning telecommunications. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-3-04;

— Nos. 412-0334 to 412-0342, 412-0451 and 412-0664 concerning natural gas. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-91-01;

— Nos. 412-0349 and 412-0350 concerning international trade. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-92-01;

— Nos. 412-0352, 412-0380, 412-0418, 412-0447, 412-0562, 412-0590, 412-0622 and 412-0655 concerning the fishing industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-11-03;

— No. 412-0360 concerning housing policy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-93-01;

— No. 412-0378 concerning immigration. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-15-05;

— Nos. 412-0381, 412-0382, 412-0528, 412-0568 and 412-0639 concerning international agreements. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-21-04;

— No. 412-0389 concerning the income tax system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-14-04;

— Nos. 412-0404 to 412-0407, 412-0440 to 412-0442, 412-0445, 412-0459, 412-0531 and 412-0583 to 412-0589 concerning budget measures. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-32-03;

— No. 412-0435 concerning the Canada Post Corporation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-1-04;

— Nos. 412-0439 and 412-0595 concerning the protection of the environment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-2-04;

— Nos. 412-0448 and 412-0533 concerning VIA Rail. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-60-03;

— Nos. 412-0450, 412-0569 and 412-0661 concerning transportation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-35-03;

— Nos. 412-0465 and 412-0609 concerning the agricultural industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-49-03;

— No. 412-0470 concerning foreign aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-34-04;

— No. 412-0527 concerning the pension system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-94-01;

— Nos. 412-0537, 412-0650 to 412-0654 and 412-0656 concerning hazardous products. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-42-02;

— Nos. 412-0538, 412-0566 and 412-0638 concerning certain diseases. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-33-03;

— No. 412-0541 concerning the democratic process. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-13-04;

— Nos. 412-0542 and 412-0668 concerning youth. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-95-01;

— Nos. 412-0600, 412-0606 and 412-0623 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-7-05;

— No. 412-0614 concerning the nuclear industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-96-01;

— No. 412-0615 concerning the Criminal Code of Canada. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-17-05;

— Nos. 412-0619 to 412-0621 concerning sex selection. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-46-06;

— No. 412-0630 concerning banks. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-38-02;

— No. 412-0633 concerning the Canada Pension Plan. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-45-03;

— No. 412-0634 concerning employment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-74-02;

— Nos. 412-0646 to 412-0648 concerning prostitution. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-47-04;

— Nos. 412-0649, 412-0657, 412-0658, 412-0660, 412-0663, 412-0666 and 412-0667 concerning victims of crime. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-97-01.

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North), seconded by Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's), Bill C-566, An Act respecting a Comprehensive Pan-Canadian Strategy on Concussion, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Motions

By unanimous consent, it was resolved, — That this House condemn the draconian law that was adopted in Ukraine on January 17, 2014, that severely limits the right of Ukrainians to peacefully organize, assemble or protest; recognize that such a law undermines freedom and democracy in Ukraine; condemn the Ukrainian government’s use of violence and threats of legal action against the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church for helping peaceful protesters; express condolences to the friends and families of those who lost their lives at the hands of the Ukrainian security forces on January 21, 2014; call upon the Ukrainian government to bring those responsible for these acts of violence and repression to justice; continue to call for Ukrainian security forces and government to refrain from the use of violence and respect the people of Ukraine’s right of peaceful protest; urge the Government of Canada, in collaboration with like-minded nations, to consider all options, including sanctions, to ensure that the democratic space in Ukraine is protected; and that this House stand united with the Ukrainian people, who believe in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Presenting Petitions

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions were presented as follows:

— by , two concerning sex selection (Nos. 412-0671 and 412-0672);

— by , one concerning the fishing industry (No. 412-0673);

— by , one concerning health care services (No. 412-0674);

— by , two concerning the tax system (Nos. 412-0675 and 412-0676) and one concerning banks (No. 412-0677);

— by , one concerning the mining industry (No. 412-0678);

— by , one concerning Old Age Security benefits (No. 412-0679);

— by , one concerning health care services (No. 412-0680);

— by , one concerning the fishing industry (No. 412-0681) and one concerning port authorities (No. 412-0682);

— by , one concerning the protection of the environment (No. 412-0683);

— by , one concerning immigration (No. 412-0684) and one concerning VIA Rail (No. 412-0685);

— by , one concerning health care services (No. 412-0686).

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the answers to questions Q-102, Q-109, Q-111 to Q-113, Q-118, Q-125, Q-126, Q-128, Q-135, Q-136, Q-138, Q-145, Q-147, Q-154, Q-158, Q-160 and Q-163 to Q-169 on the Order Paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:

Q-100 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-100.

Q-101 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-101.

Q-103 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-103.

Q-104 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-104.

Q-105 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-105.

Q-106 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-106.

Q-107 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-107.

Q-110 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-110.

Q-115 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-115.

Q-116 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-116.

Q-117 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-117.

Q-120 — — 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)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-120.

Q-121 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-121.

Q-122 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-122.

Q-123 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-123.

Q-124 — — 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.? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-124.

Q-127 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-127.

Q-129 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-129.

Q-130 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-130.

Q-131 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-131.

Q-132 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-132.

Q-133 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-133.

Q-134 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-134.

Q-137 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-137.

Q-139 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-139.

Q-140 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-140.

Q-141 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-141.

Q-142 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-142.

Q-143 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-143.

Q-144 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-144.

Q-146 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-146.

Q-148 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-148.

Q-149 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-149.

Q-150 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-150.

Q-151 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-151.

Q-152 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-152.

Q-153 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-153.

Q-155 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-155.

Q-156 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-156.

Q-157 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-157.

Q-159 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-159.

Q-161 — — 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 =(?_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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-161.

Q-162 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-162.

Q-170 — — 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? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-170.

Applications for Emergency Debate

Pursuant to Standing Order 52, Mr. Opitz (Etobicoke Centre) asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the situation in Ukraine.

The Speaker decided that the matter was proper to be discussed and, pursuant to Standing Order 52(9), directed that it be considered later today, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Government Orders

And of the motion of , seconded by , — That this question be now put.

The debate continued.

Motions

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 later today, no quorum call, dilatory motion or request for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Government Orders

And of the motion of , seconded by , — That this question be now put.

The debate continued.

Emergency Debate

Pursuant to Standing Order 52(10), the House proceeded to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the situation in Ukraine.

, seconded by , moved, — That this House do now adjourn.

Debate arose thereon.

At midnight, the Speaker declared the motion adopted.

Appointments to a Committee

Pursuant to Order made on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, the list of members for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was deposited with the Clerk of the House as follows:

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

Members (10)
Brad Butt David Christopherson Kevin Lamoureux Alexandrine Latendresse Tom Lukiwski	Ted Opitz Joe Preston Scott Reid Blake Richards Craig Scott

Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were deemed laid upon the Table on Wednesday, December 18, 2013:

— by — Report of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency on the administration and enforcement of the Pest Control Products Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Pest Control Products Act, S.C. 2002, c. 28, sbs. 80(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-991-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food)

— by — Report of the Canada Pension Plan, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Canada Pension Plan Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-8, sbs. 117(2). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-59-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities)

— by — Report of the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-2-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for the period 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2012-2013 of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-826-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans)

— by — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:

— Nos. 412-0218, 412-0249, 412-0255 and 412-0322 concerning the fishing industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-11-02;

— Nos. 412-0219 and 412-0250 concerning a national day. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-68-01;

— Nos. 412-0220 and 412-0225 concerning navigable waters. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-24-03;

— Nos. 412-0221, 412-0229 to 412-0232, 412-0261, 412-0278, 412-0309, 412-0354, 412-0355, 412-0374 and 412-0408 to 412-0411 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-7-04;

— Nos. 412-0227 and 412-0555 concerning access to information. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-26-02;

— No. 412-0234 concerning the fur industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-52-02;

— Nos. 412-0256 to 412-0259 concerning international agreements. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-21-03;

— Nos. 412-0281 to 412-0284, 412-0323, 412-0331, 412-0387, 412-0388, 412-0398, 412-0412 to 412-0417, 412-0429, 412-0462 and 412-0553 concerning genetic engineering. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-4-05;

— No. 412-0307 concerning China. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-19-02;

— No. 412-0313 concerning euthanasia. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-69-01;

— No. 412-0317 concerning the Senate. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-70-01;

— Nos. 412-0332, 412-0333 and 412-0345 concerning funding aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-22-04;

— No. 412-0356 concerning the Canada Revenue Agency. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-71-01;

— No. 412-0375 concerning human trafficking. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-72-01;

— No. 412-0379 concerning the protection of the environment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-2-03;

— No. 412-0383 concerning nuclear weapons. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-62-02;

— Nos. 412-0385, 412-0426, 412-0430, 412-0431 and 412-0540 concerning the Criminal Code of Canada. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-17-03;

— Nos. 412-0420 to 412-0423, 412-0468, 412-0469, 412-0478, 412-0479 and 412-0560 concerning prostitution. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-47-03;

— Nos. 412-0427, 412-0456 and 412-0539 concerning sex selection. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-46-04;

— Nos. 412-0432 and 412-0509 to 412-0519 concerning cruelty to animals. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-48-03;

— Nos. 412-0455, 412-0544, 412-0573 and 412-0574 concerning abortion. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-53-02;

— Nos. 412-0467 and 412-0499 concerning the democratic process. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-13-02;

— Nos. 412-0536, 412-0546 and 412-0612 concerning Old Age Security benefits. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-31-05.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were deemed laid upon the Table on Wednesday, January 22, 2014:

— by — Actuarial Report on the Benefit Plan financed through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Dependants) Pension Fund for the period of April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, R.S. 1970, c. R-10, sbs. 56(3). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-230-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Finance)

— by — Report of the Blue Water Bridge Authority, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the year 2013, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-821-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2013-2017 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2013 of VIA Rail Canada Inc., pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-803-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 and of the Capital and Operating Budgets for 2013-2014 of the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-822-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Summary of the Corporate Plan for 2011-2015 of Ridley Terminals Inc., pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-860-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Summary of the Corporate Plan for 2012-2016 of Ridley Terminals Inc., pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-860-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:

— Nos. 412-0276 and 412-0601 concerning the mining industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-28-03;

— No. 412-0280 concerning VIA Rail. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-60-02;

— No. 412-0315 concerning Bangladesh. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-40-02;

— Nos. 412-0318 to 412-0320 concerning the Canada Labour Code. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-73-01;

— No. 412-0326 concerning Canada's railways. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-61-02;

— No. 412-0346 concerning the agricultural industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-49-02;

— Nos. 412-0359, 412-0428 and 412-0500 concerning employment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-74-01;

— No. 412-0361 concerning federal programs. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-75-01;

— No. 412-0363 concerning sexual orientation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-76-01;

— Nos. 412-0364 and 412-0605 concerning veterans' affairs. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-77-01;

— Nos. 412-0365, 412-0629 and 412-0631 concerning the Criminal Code of Canada. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-17-04;

— Nos. 412-0366 to 412-0372, 412-0386, 412-0452, 412-0551 and 412-0659 concerning navigable waters. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-24-04;

— No. 412-0373 concerning landmines. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-29-03;

— No. 412-0376 concerning firefighters. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-78-01;

— No. 412-0377 concerning cruelty to animals. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-48-04;

— Nos. 412-0390, 412-0393, 412-0403, 412-0484 to 412-0498, 412-0529, 412-0571, 412-0618 and 412-0635 concerning funding aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-22-05;

— Nos. 412-0392, 412-0394, 412-0453, 412-0526 and 412-0594 concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-6-04;

— Nos. 412-0395, 412-0433, 412-0443, 412-0444, 412-0534, 412-0535, 412-0645 and 412-0669 concerning transportation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-35-02;

— Nos. 412-0400 and 412-0557 concerning China. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-19-03;

— No. 412-0419 concerning a national day. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-68-02;

— Nos. 412-0424, 412-0472, 412-0558 and 412-0575 concerning climate change. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-50-04;

— Nos. 412-0425 and 412-0627 concerning museums. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-57-02;

— Nos. 412-0436, 412-0437, 412-0547, 412-0617 and 412-0628 concerning genetic engineering. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-4-06;

— Nos. 412-0438, 412-0550, 412-0563, 412-0564, 412-0607 and 412-0608 concerning lighthouses. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-79-01;

— No. 412-0446 concerning the Canadian Coast Guard. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-67-02;

— No. 412-0454 concerning the issuing of visas. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-65-02;

— Nos. 412-0457 and 412-0458 concerning environmental pollution. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-80-01;

— Nos. 412-0474 to 412-0477 concerning hunting. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-81-01;

— Nos. 412-0480 to 412-0483, 412-0545, 412-0548, 412-0591, 412-0599, 412-0604, 412-0616, 412-0636, 412-0637 and 412-0670 concerning the income tax system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-14-03;

— Nos. 412-0520 to 412-0522 concerning the grain industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-82-01;

— No. 412-0525 concerning the democratic process. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-13-03;

— No. 412-0530 concerning nuclear weapons. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-62-03;

— No. 412-0554 concerning the tax on gasoline. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-83-01;

— Nos. 412-0556 and 412-0662 concerning federal electoral districts. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-84-01;

— No. 412-0561 concerning science policy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-85-01;

— Nos. 412-0567 and 412-0626 concerning the electoral system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-12-04;

— No. 412-0570 concerning Canadian heritage. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-86-01;

— Nos. 412-0572 and 412-0641 concerning the Senate. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-70-02;

— No. 412-0603 concerning environmental assessment and review. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-9-02;

— No. 412-0611 concerning working conditions. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-87-01;

— No. 412-0632 concerning sex selection. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-46-05.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were laid upon the Table as follows:

— by — Report on operations under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act for the fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13, pursuant to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-51, s. 52. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-16-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage)

— by — Summary of the Corporate Plan for 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, pursuant to the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, sbs. 55(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-849-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage)

Adjournment

At midnight, the Speaker adjourned the House until later today at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).