;

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


Thursday, February 6, 2014 (No. 43)

Questions

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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.

Q-171² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what was the amount and percentage of all “lapsed spending” in the department, broken down by year from 2005 to 2013?

Q-172² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), what criteria were used to determine which VA regional offices would be closed by February 2014, as announced in the 2012-2013 budget?

Q-173² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the nine regional offices of Veterans Affairs that are to be closed by February 2014 (Charlottetown, Corner Brook, Sydney, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Kelowna, Prince George, Saskatoon, and Brandon): what are the total operating costs by year for each office from 2009-2012?

Q-174² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to government spending in the province of Prince Edward Island: (a) what has been the total amount of spending in the province each year since 2006; (b) what has been the total amount of spending each year since 2006 in the constituencies of (i) Cardigan, (ii) Charlottetown, (iii) Malpeque, (iv) Egmont; and (c) what is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006, broken down by (i) the date the money was received, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program from which the funding came, (iv) the ministry responsible, (v) the designated recipient?

Q-175² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the Canada Europe Free Trade Agreement (CETA): (a) what are the details of all tariffs which will be removed on Canadian seafood products, (i) on what date(s) will they be removed, (ii) what are the projected savings for the Canadian seafood industry; (b) what are the details of all tariffs which will be removed on European seafood products, (i) on which date(s) will they be removed, (ii) what are the projected savings for the European seafood industry; (c) what is the total number and value of Canadian seafood exports to the European Union (EU) in each year since 2006, broken down by province; (d) what is the total number and value of European seafood exports to Canada in each year since 2006; (e) what effects will the elimination of Newfoundland and Labrador’s (NL) Minimum Processing Requirement (MPR) on seafood products exported to the EU have on that province’s processing industry; (f) what are the details of NL's processed seafood exports to the EU by value and weight for each year since 2006; (g) has the government done any study or analysis on what the implications of the removal of the MPR will be or consulted any outside organizations or companies as to what the implications will be, and if so, what are the details of the implications; (h) how many NL processing plant employees does the government expect to be displaced due to the removal of the MPR; (i) what are the details of the $280 million the government is providing in return for removing the MPR in NL, including (i) the programs and departments from which the money will be allocated, (ii) the details on what the money will be used for, (iii) when the money will be spent, (iv) the reasons for providing this money; (j) was the EU ban on Canadian seal products ever a part of high level discussions between the government and the EU regarding CETA and if not why not; (k) what are the details of any and all effects CETA will have on foreign ownership of Canadian fishing licenses; and (l) will CETA have any effect on small craft harbour funding, the fleet separation or owner-operator policies, controlling agreements, or any other funding, policies or programs related to fish harvesters, the fishing industry, or coastal communities in Canada?

Q-176² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), what applications have been received from the riding of Avalon for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, including (i) the specific projects that were approved or rejected in each fiscal year, (ii) the name and physical address of proponent(s), (iii) the project title, (iv) the proposed scope of work, (v) the total cost of the projects, (vi) the amount of funding approved by ACOA, (vii) the funding program(s) within ACOA that the funding approved?

Q-177² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the Department of National Defence and its commitment to the Air Cadet Flying Program: (a) what changes will take place for 2014 and what are the projected budget savings; (b) will the role of the Air Cadet League of Canada change in 2013 or 2014; (c) will the Air Transport Association of Canada play a role in the program in 2013 or 2014; (d) how many individuals participated in the Air Cadet Flying Program in each year from 2010-2013; and (e) how many individuals are projected to participate in the program for 2014 and 2015?

Q-178² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office, as of February 1, 2013: (a) how many individuals make an annual salary of $150,000 a year or more; (b) how many individuals make an annual salary of $200,000 or more; (c) how many individuals make an annual salary of $250,000 a year or more; (d) how many individuals make an annual salary of $300,000 or more; (e) of those who make an annual salary of $200,000 or more, how many received a performance award, otherwise known as a bonus; and (f) of those who received a performance award, what was the amount of each?

Q-179² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to employees and contractors of the government of Canada within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) how many such employees or contractors have there been in total per year since 2004, broken down by (i) riding (current boundaries), (ii) riding (proposed boundaries), (iii) full time, part time or occasional status, (iv) permanent, indeterminate, or temporary status, (v) total gross income for each response in (iii) and (iv), (vi) department, office, facility, or contract location; and (b) what are the projected responses for all clauses in (a) between now and 2019?

Q-180² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for each year from 2003 to 2013, what was the CPI for each household income quintile given the goods and services typically purchased by each quintile according to the average household spending patterns?

Q-181² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to mobile applications, broken down by department and individual project, for each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, what is the total amount spent on (i) the development, (ii) the maintenance and update, of mobile applications?

Q-182² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to Canada Student Loan forgiveness for eligible family doctors, residents in family medicine, registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses, registered practical nurses, licensed practical nurses, or nurse practitioners who work in rural or remote communities: (a) how many medical professionals have applied for loan forgiveness since April 1, 2013, broken down by (i) eligible medical profession, (ii) the designated community in which the applicant is working; (b) how many medical professionals who have applied for loan forgiveness have been accepted for loan forgiveness since April 1, 2013, broken down by (i) eligible medical profession, (ii) the designated community in which the applicant is working; and (c) what is the anticipated total value of loan forgiveness payments that will be paid to qualified medical professionals under this program by April 2014, broken down by (i) loan forgiveness period, (ii) eligible medical profession, (iii) the designated community in which the applicant is working?

Q-183² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to extradition: (a) broken down by country and by year for the past 20 years, (i) how many people have been extradited to Canada, (ii) how many requests has Canada received for extradition, (iii) how many people have been extradited from Canada, (iv) how many requests has Canada made for an individual to be extradited, (v) by year of request, how many extradition requests are still pending in Canada, (vi) by year of request, how many Canadian extradition requests are still pending abroad, (vii) what is the last step undertaken in the extradition process of cases that are still pending in Canada, (viii) what is the last step undertaken in the extradition process of Canadian cases that are still pending abroad, (ix) by country of request, what is the average delay in months from the date that extradition is sought to Canada extraditing the individual, (x) what is the average time in months from the date that extradition is sought to the individual returning to Canada, (xi) how much money has Canada spent on each extradition case litigated abroad, (xii) how much money has Canada spent on each extradition case litigated in Canada, (xiii) for each extradition request in Canada, how many judicial decisions resulted, and at which court levels; (b) what is the mean, median, and mode for number of judicial proceedings in Canada for the average extradition for the last 20 years; (c) for extradition treaties in particular, (i) with which countries does Canada have extradition treaties in place, (ii) with which countries is Canada currently negotiating extradition treaties, (iii) what is the last step undertaken in the process of treaty-making for current extradition treaty negotiations, (iv) how frequently are extradition treaties reviewed, (v) by what metrics are extradition treaties reviewed, (vi) what consultations have taken place regarding extradition treaties in the past seven years, (vi) what consultations are scheduled regarding extradition treaties, (vii) with what individuals and groups have Ministers of the Crown met regarding extradition treaties, (viii) with what individuals and groups have government departments met regarding extradition treaties, (ix) how is Parliament informed of any changes to extradition treaties, (x) by what metrics are the effectiveness of Canada’s extradition treaties evaluated, (xi) do different extradition treaties have different measures of effectiveness, and if so, how do they differ, (xii) what benefits does Canada observe from having extradition treaties, (xiii) how are the benefits in (xii) quantified, (xiv) what steps are in place to ensure consistency in application of treaties, (xv) what steps are in place to ensure consistency in enforcement of treaties, (xvi) what steps are in place to ensure consistency in effectiveness of treaties; (d) for the extradition process in particular, (i) how often is it reviewed in Canada, (ii) when was the last review completed, (iii) when is the next review scheduled, (iv) by what metrics is the effectiveness of the extradition system evaluated, (v) who determines the metrics in (iv), (vi) what steps are in place to reduce delays in the processing of an extradition case, (vii) what are the standards established for the processing of an extradition case and who establishes them, (viii) by what metrics are the standards in (vii) reviewed, (ix) when was the last review in (viii) completed, (x) when is the next review of the standards in (vii) scheduled, (xi) what is the role of Citizenship and Immigration Canada in the extradition process; (e) what metrics does Canada track with respect to extraditions and who is responsible for tracking them; (f) in what way are the provinces involved in the extradition process; (g) are the provinces being consulted with regard to any forthcoming changes, if so, in what ways; (h) regarding the Minister of Justice’s August 2013 comments that there is a “need to reform and modernize how we extradite people”, (i) what policies are in place to modernize the extradition process, (ii) what policies are in development to modernize the extradition process, (iii) how does the government define “modernization”, (iv) by what metrics is the modernization of the extradition process tracked, (v) what steps are in place to further modernize the extradition process, (vi) what consultations have taken place regarding the modernization of the extradition process in the past year, (vii) what consultations are scheduled regarding the modernization of the extradition process, (viii) with what individuals and groups have Ministers of the Crown met with regarding the modernization of the extradition process, (ix) with what individuals and groups have government departments met with regarding the modernization process, (x)what other policies are in place to ensure that Canada has an effective and modern extradition policy; (i) what other policies are in place to ensure that Canada has an effective and modern extradition system; (j) what is involved in determining the countries to which Canada can extradite a requested individual; (k) under what circumstances does Canada reject an extradition request; (l) how is the determination in (k) made; (m) how many extradition requests has Canada refused to honour in the past 10 years, broken down by country of request and reason; (n) in what cases will Canada not seek extradition of a Canadian abroad; (o) how is the determination in (n) made; (p) what procedures exist to ensure consistency in Canada’s requests or decisions not to request extradition of an individual; (q) has any study been conducted as to the impact on the extradition process (i) of an election being called in Canada and, if so, with what conclusions, (ii) of a change in government in Canada and, if so, with what conclusions; (r) what trends have been observed in the past ten years regarding the frequency of extradition requests and their processing; (s) what academic studies has Canada sought in relation to extradition within the past ten years; (t) what additional reviews or analysis of the extradition process have been completed internally by the government in the past 10 years; (u)what measures has the government undertaken to inform Canadians about the extradition process and any changes thereto; (v) how have Canada’s extradition policies been relayed to international partners and what meetings have most recently occurred with Canadian officials surrounding extradition; (w) what recourse is available to individuals whom the government chooses not to extradite; (x) what recourses exist for Canada when another government refuses an extradition request; (y) how many extradition requests made by Canada in the past ten years, broken down by country, have been refused; (z) on what basis was the request in (y) refused; (aa) what was the outcome for the individuals in the cases indicated in (y); (bb) in what instances has Canada sent a diplomatic note with respect to an extradition request; (cc) what is the role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the extradition process; (dd) how does the government ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (ee) what other international law instruments – other than extradition treaties – are involved in the extradition process; (ff) how does the government ensure compliance with the other international law instruments described in (ee); and (gg) what is the history of Canada’s extradition policy and what particular principles have been established to guide policy development and implementation in this regard?

Q-184² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the position of Ambassador of Fisheries Conservation: (a) does the government plan to fill this position; (b) if so, when; and (c) if not, why not?

Q-185² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to government communications since October 23, 2013: (a) for each press release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by any government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code-number, (iv) subject-matter; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed (i) on the web site of the issuing department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of using the service?

Q-188² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to applications to the Minister of Justice for ministerial review of criminal convictions: (a) for each year since 2002, (i) how many applications for review of a criminal conviction were received by the Minister of Justice, (ii) of the applications received, how many preliminary assessments were completed, (iii) of applications that completed preliminary assessment, how many proceeded to the investigation stage, (iv) of completed investigations, how many applications were dismissed, (v) how many applications, and which specific ones, were granted, (vi) of applications granted, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister direct a new trial, (vii) of applications granted, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister refer a case to the court of appeal; (b) for each year since 2002, (i) how much funding was made available to the Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG) for use in the conviction review process, (ii) how much money was spent by the CCRG, (iii) how much money has been requested by the CCRG; (c) for each year since 2002, (i) how much funding was made available to the Department of Justice for use in the post-conviction review process, (ii) how much money was spent by the Department of Justice in this regard, (iii) how much money was requested by the Minister of Justice for use in this regard; (d) in the current employ of the CCRG, (i) how many individuals are lawyers; (ii) how many individuals are non-lawyers, broken down by job title, (iii) what is the employment term for the individuals in (i) and (ii); (e) for each year since 2002, (i) how many lawyers were employed by the CCRG, (ii) who was responsible for determining the staffing requirements of the CCRG, (iii) how frequently were staffing levels reviewed to ensure that they are adequate to handle the number of applications received, (v) how many CCRG staff were involved in the review of each application received by the Minister, (vi) how many applications were reviewed by each individual lawyer employed by the CCRG, (vii) broken down by case, which lawyers were assigned to which applications, (viii) of those applications reviewed by each individual lawyer employed by the CCRG, how many, and which ones, resulted in a completed preliminary review, (ix) how many resulted in a completed investigation; (f) for each year since 2002, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the CCRG recommend further investigation; (g) for each year since 2002, in how many investigations, and in which specific cases, did the CCRG, (i) interview or examine witnesses, (ii) carry out scientific testing, (iii) obtain assessments from forensic and social science specialists, (iv) consult police agencies in connection with the specific investigation, (v) consult prosecutors in connection with the specific investigation, (vi) consult defence lawyers in connection with the specific investigation, (vii) obtain any other relevant information or documentation; (h) for each year since 2002, (i) in how many cases, and in which ones, did the CCRG produce an investigation report, (ii) in how many cases, and in which ones, did the applicant provide comments on an investigation report, (iii) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the CCRG conduct further investigation based on an applicant’s comments to an investigation report, (iv) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Special Advisor produce advice or make a recommendation to the Minister that differed from the advice or recommendation contained in the CCRG’s investigation report, (v) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister make a determination that differed from the investigation report, (vi) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister make a determination that differed from the Special Advisor; (i) Regarding the “new matters of significance” test, (i) is it currently necessary that an application for review of a criminal conviction be supported by “new matters of significance” in order for it to proceed to the preliminary assessment stage, (ii) in order for it to proceed to investigation, (iii) in order for the Minister to allow the application; (j) regarding the “new matters of significance” test, (i) has the test been applied the same way in each year since 2002, (ii) if not, how has its application changed, (iii) are there any cases, and if so which ones, where an application proceeded to any stage of the review process without having adduced “new matters of significance”, (iv) what is the meaning of the term “new matters of significance” in the context of the ministerial review process, (v) for an application to proceed, must it be supported by “fresh evidence” not available at the time of trial, (vi) can an application for review proceed based on evidence that existed, but was not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, (vii) can an application for review proceed based on evidence that reasonably could have been, but was not, discovered by the applicant at the time of trial; (k) for each year since 2002, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister waive privilege regarding an investigation report; (l) broken down by year since 2002 and by case, in which cases did the Minister, (i) determine there to be a conflict of interest, (ii) in those cases where the Minister determined there to be a conflict of interest, in which specific instances did the Minister authorize an agent outside of the department of Justice or the CCRG to carry out the investigation; (m) broken down by year since 2002 and by case, in which cases, and to whom, did the Minister (i) delegate his powers to take evidence, (ii) delegate his powers to issue subpoenas, (iii) delegate his powers to enforce the attendance of witnesses, (iv) delegate his powers to compel a witness to give evidence, (v) delegate his powers to otherwise conduct an investigation and, if so, what specific powers were delegated; (n) regarding the requirement under section 696.5 of the Criminal Code that the Minister of Justice submit an annual report to Parliament regarding applications for ministerial review, (i) what are the requirements pertaining to the compilation and submission of the annual report, (ii) where are these requirements contained, (iii) have these requirements changed since 2002 and, if so, when and in what specific ways were they changed, (iv) what requirements for publication exist, if any, (v) what is the process for dissemination of the report; (o) regarding the requirement under section 7(f) of the Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review that the Minister include in his annual report “any other information that [he] considers appropriate”, (i) what guidelines exist for determining what information is appropriate for inclusion in the report under this element of the Regulations, (ii) what aspects of each ministerial report submitted pursuant to section 696.5 of the Criminal Code since 2002 was included as a result of the Minister’s determination that it is appropriate for inclusion under section 7(f) of the Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review; (p) broken down by year since 2000, how many Canadian Commissions of Inquiry into wrongful convictions have recommended the further study or implementation of an independent commission to assume the powers of the Minister of Justice to investigate and refer cases of suspected miscarriages of justice for judicial re-consideration; (q) broken down by specific Commission of Inquiry, (i) which specific foreign review mechanisms have been examined as potential models to reform the current Canadian post-conviction review regime, (ii) what actions have been taken to implement the findings or suggestions of the commission of inquiry, (iii) has the government consulted with any stakeholders regarding the possibility of implementing an independent commission of inquiry to assume the powers of the Minister of Justice in this regard, (iv) what specific stakeholders were consulted in this regard and when, (v) with which provinces has the government consulted in this regard, (vi) with which provincial bar associations has the government consulted in this regard, (vii) with which provincial Attorneys General did the government consult in this regard, (viii) has the government engaged in any analysis of the comparative costs associated with the current ministerial review process compared to a possible independent review commission; (r) what specific steps is the government undertaking to minimize the incidence of wrongful conviction; (s) what efforts have been made to implement the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group reports in respect of wrongful conviction; (t) what efforts are made to inform Canadians of their options with respect to addressing what they believe to be a wrongful conviction or other miscarriage of justice; (u) with respect to the government’s website entitled “Conviction Review" (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ccr-rc/rev.html), last updated on April 30, 2013, what changes were made on this date and what are the three previous versions of this page; (v) by what means is the wrongful conviction process as a whole reviewed by the government and what metrics are tracked with respect to it; and (w) regarding the 2004 Annual Report, in which the then-Minister of Justice stated that “although it is not required, applicants are encouraged to seek the assistance of counsel,” (i) when was the language "encouraged to seek the assistance of counsel" removed from the Annual Report, (ii) whose decision was it to remove this language and on what basis, (iii) when was this change implemented, (iv) did this change further a specific policy objective, (v) what policy objective did this change further, (vi) is there any difference in the success rates of pro bono applications compared to applications submitted with legal assistance and what is the difference, (vii) has the Department of Justice called for greater access to legal assistance for those submitting applications for ministerial review of their criminal convictions?

Q-189² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to Canadians detained abroad: (a) broken down by year for each of the last 15 years, and broken down by country of arrest, charge, or detention, (i) how many Canadians have been arrested outside of Canada, (ii) how many Canadians have been detained outside of Canada, (iii) how many Canadians detained outside of Canada have been charged with an offence, (iv) how many Canadians have been detained without charge outside of Canada; (b) broken down by country of arrest, charge or detention, (i) how many Canadians are currently detained outside of Canada, (ii) how many Canadians currently face charges outside of Canada, (iii) how many Canadians are currently detained without charge outside of Canada; (c) for each instance in (a) and (b), (i) which representatives of the government met with the individual charged or detained, (ii) on what dates did these meetings occur, (iii) what other communication, if any, occurred between the government and the individual, (iv) through what medium did this communication occur, (v) what was the purpose of each of these meetings and communications, (vi) what was the outcome of each of these meetings and communications; (d) for each instance in (a) and (b), (i) which representatives of the government contacted family members of the individual charged or detained, (ii) on what dates were these family members contacted by the government, (iii) which representatives of the government were contacted by family members of the individual charged or detained, (iv) on what dates did the family members contact the government, (v) through what medium did each contact between the government and the family members of the individual charged or detained occur, (vi) what was the purpose of each communication between the government and the family members of the individual charged or detained, (vii) what was the outcome of each communication between the government and the family members of the individual charged or detained; (e) regarding each instance in (a) and (b), (i) what non-governmental organizations were contacted by the government, (ii) on what dates were these organizations contacted by the government, (iii) which representatives of the government contacted these organizations, (iv) what non-governmental organizations contacted the government, (v) on what dates did these organizations contact the government, (vi) which representatives of the government were contacted by these organizations, (vii) through what medium did each contact between the government and a non-governmental organization occur, (viii) what was the purpose of each communication between the government and the non-governmental organization, (ix) what was the outcome of each communication between the government and the non-governmental organization, (x) what assistance did non-governmental organizations offer to provide to the government, to the Canadian, or to the Canadian’s family, (xi) in what ways did non-governmental organizations assist in providing services to the Canadian arrested, charged, or detained, or to his or her family, (xii) in what ways did non-governmental organizations assist in securing or attempting to secure the release or extradition of the Canadian, (xiii) what other assistance did the non-governmental organization provide; (f) regarding each instance in (a) and (b), (i) what representations were made by the government to the government of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged or detained, (ii) on what dates were these representations made, (iii) which representatives of the government made these representations, (iv) through what medium were these representations made, (v) what response did the government receive from the government of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged or detained, (vi) which representatives of the government received the response, (vii) through what medium was the response delivered, (viii) which representatives of the government of the country in which the Canadian was charged or detained responded to the government’s representations, (ix) what was the purpose of each representation made by the government to the government of the country in which the Canadian was charged or detained, (x) what was the outcome of each representation made by the government to the government of the country in which the Canadian was charged or detained, (xi) what other communications did the government receive, solicited or otherwise, from the government of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged or detained; (g) regarding each instance in (a) and (b), (i) what governments of third-party countries were contacted by the government, (ii) on what dates were the governments of third-party countries contacted by the government, (iii) which representatives of the government contacted the governments of the third-party countries, (iv) what governments of third-party countries contacted the government, (v) on what dates did the governments of third-party countries contact the government, (vi) which representatives of the government were contacted by the governments of third-party countries, (vii) through what medium did each of these contacts occur, (viii) what was the purpose of each contact between the government and the government of a third-party country, (ix) what was the outcome of each contact between the government and the government of a third-party country, (x) what assistance did governments of third-party countries offer to provide to the government, to the Canadian, or to the Canadian’s family, (xi) in what ways did governments of third-party countries assist in providing services to the Canadian arrested, charged or detained, or to his or her family, (xii) in what ways did governments of third-party countries assist in securing or attempting to secure the release or extradition of the Canadian, (xiii) what other assistance did the governments of third-party countries provide; (h) at the time of their arrest, charge, or detention, which Canadians in (a) and (b) had (i) Canadian citizenship, (ii) Canadian permanent resident status, (iii) other status in Canada; (i) for each instance in (a), (i) does the Canadian remain detained outside of Canada, (ii) is the Canadian currently detained in Canada, (iii) was the Canadian extradited to Canada, (iv) was the Canadian released by the country in which he or she was arrested, charged, or detained, (v) was the Canadian released after being extradited to Canada, (vi) did the Canadian die in the custody of the country in which he or she was arrested, charged, or detained, (vii) did the Canadian die in Canadian custody, (viii) is the Canadian’s status unknown; (j) for each instance in (a) and (b), (i) on what date did the government learn that the Canadian had been arrested, charged or detained, (ii) which representative of the government first learned that the Canadian had been arrested, charged, or detained, (iii) how did that representative learn that the Canadian had been arrested, charged, or detained; (k) for each instance in (a) and (b), was the arrest, charge, or detention determined by the government to be consistent with (i) Canadian norms, (ii) international norms, (iii) the norms of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged, or detained; (l) for each instance in (a) and (b), based on what information did the government determine whether the arrest, charge, or detention was consistent with (i) Canadian norms, (ii) international norms, (iii) the norms of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged, or detained; (m) for each instance in (a) and (b), based on what criteria did the government determine whether the arrest, charge, or detention was consistent with (i) Canadian norms, (ii) international norms, (iii) the norms of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged, or detained; (n) for each instance in (a) and (b), (i) who made the determinations in (k), (ii) when did the process of making the determinations in (k) begin, (iii) when were the determinations made; and (o) for each instance in (b), (i) what actions is the government taking to ensure that the Canadian’s rights are respected, (ii) what actions is the government taking to ensure that the Canadian receives a fair trial, (iii) what actions is the government taking to ensure that the Canadian is treated humanely, (iv) what actions is the government taking to secure the Canadian’s release, (v) what actions is the government taking to secure the Canadian’s extradition?

Q-190² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the sale of the CANDU Reactor Division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) to SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. during June 2011: (a) what was the government’s economic rationale and business case in support of this sale; (b) what government documents contained, outlined, or presented this economic rationale and business case; (c) what were the full titles of the documents in (b); (d) by whom were the documents in (b) prepared; (e) on what dates were the documents in (b) prepared; (f) on what dates were the documents in (b) presented to the Minister of Natural Resources; (g) what documents did SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. provide the government in support of this sale; (h) what were the full titles of the documents in (g); (i) by whom were the documents in (g) prepared; (j) who submitted the documents in (g) to the government; (k) on what dates were the documents in (g) prepared; (l) on what dates were the documents in (g) presented to the Minister of Natural Resources; and (m) what due diligence was applied by the government in order to verify the factual content of the documents in (g)?

Q-191² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to the equipment provided to regular and reserve members of the Canadian Armed Forces, what is the total number of newly enlisted members who have not yet been issued boots since January 1, 2013, broken down by (i) regular or reserve status, (ii) branch of the Canadian Armed Forces, (iii) rank of member, (iv) unit, (v) month of enlistment?

Q-192² — December 9, 2013 — — With regard to outside legal counsel, legal advice, or any other form of legal assistance provided to government by non-government lawyers, and broken down by year since 2006: (a) what is the amount spent by department; (b) what program activities across government account for the top twenty expenditures used for non-government legal services; (c) what are the names of law firms used; (d) what is the breakdown of expenditure wherein the government was the defendant, by department and by cause of action; and (e) what is the breakdown of expenditure where the government was the plaintiff, by department and by cause of action?

Q-193² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the Legal Aid Program Evaluation Final Report of 2012: (a) what is the role and mandate of the government with respect to criminal legal aid; (b) how was the policy in (a) determined and developed, when and by whom; (c) what is the role and mandate of the government with respect to civil legal aid; (d) how was the policy in (c) determined and developed, when and by whom; (e) what steps has the government taken to provide criminal legal aid; (f) what steps has the government taken to provide civil legal aid; (g) what statistics does the government track with respect to delays before provincial courts; (h) what steps has the government taken to develop national standards for the provision of legal aid; (i) what metrics has the government developed with respect to access to justice; (j) with respect to the metrics in (i), (i) how are these assessed, (ii) when was the most recent assessment, (iii) what was the conclusion of that most recent assessment, (iv) what action was taken as a result of that assessment; (k) what policy objectives have been identified with respect to (i) the challenge of access to justice, (ii) the challenge of long trials, (iii) the challenge of delays in the justice system, (iv) the challenge of dealing with deeply rooted, endemic social problems, (v) the rising cost of legal aid, (vi) the increasing demand for legal aid, (vii) concerns expressed about whether provinces and territories can continue to increase their contributions; (l) what individual pieces of legislation have been adopted or proposed to address each of the issues in (k), broken down by sub-issues; (m) what regulations have been adopted with respect to the issues in (k), broken down by sub-issue; (n) what indicators have been identified to measure the efficiency and economy of the federal Legal Aid Program (LAP); (o) what steps have been undertaken to collect relevant data from provinces, territories and legal aid plans on the (i) effectiveness, (ii) efficiency, (iii) economy of the LAP to assist future evaluations; (p) what measures are in place to expand the use of duty council with respect to ensuring access to legal aid; (q) for the last ten years, broken down by year, what has been the average cost of a legal aid application; (r) for the last ten years, broken down by year, what has the cost been for LAP funding for criminal legal aid; (s) for the next ten years, what is the projection for funding for criminal legal aid currently represented; (t) for the last ten years, broken down by year, what has been the cost of criminal legal aid and how is this figure arrived at; and (u) for the next ten years, broken down by year, what is the projected cost of criminal legal aid and how is this figure calculated?

Q-194² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, Quebec: (a) how much is this replacement bridge estimated to cost; and (b) what is the estimated toll charge for this replacement bridge?

Q-195² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the sale of Canadian diplomatic properties abroad, for the period from 2006-2013: (a) which properties have been sold, and for each property, (i) what was the assessed value, (ii) who was responsible for the valuation, (iii) what was the asking price, (iv) what was the final sale price, (v) what real estate agency or similar private company was engaged to execute or assist in the sale, (vi) how much was each private company paid for the sale, (vii) were there other expenses incurred (fees, taxes, etc) as part of the sale and, if so, what was the total cost; (b) which properties are for sale or are under consideration for eventual sale, and for each property, (i) what is the assessed value, (ii) who was responsible for the valuation, (iii) what is the asking price, (iv) what real estate agency or similar private company is being engaged to execute or assist in the sale, (v) how much is each private company being paid for the sale; and (c) specifically regarding the sale of MacDonald House in London, United Kingdom, (i) what was the assessed value, (ii) who was responsible for the valuation, (iii) what was the asking price, (iv) what was the final sale price, (v) how much was Savills plc. paid for the sale, (vi) was any other private company engaged to provide services during or related to the sale, (vii) if so, what was the name of each company, what service did it provide, and how much was it paid, (viii) were there other expenses incurred (fees, taxes, etc) as part of the sale and, if so, what was the total cost?

Q-196² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to Youth Mobility Agreements, for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) with which countries does Canada have an agreement; (b) how many openings were there for Canadian youth to travel to each country under the auspices of the agreement; (c) how many Canadians travelled to each country under the auspices of the agreement; (d) how many openings were there for youth from the other countries to travel to Canada under the auspices of the agreement; and (e) how many youths from each country travelled to Canada under the auspices of the agreement?

Q-197² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to spending under the Scientific Research and Experimental Development program for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) how much funding was granted in each province and territory; (b) how much funding in each province and territory went to small businesses; (c) how much funding in each province and territory went to big businesses; (d) how much funding in each province and territory went to an individual; (e) how much funding in each province and territory was for basic scientific research; (f) how much funding in each province and territory was for applied research; and (g) how much funding in each province and territory was awarded for other research?

Q-198² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to applications received from Saskatchewan for Western Economic Diversification Canada’s Western Innovation (WINN) Initiative: (a) how many applications were received for the first intake, completed on December 8, 2013; (b) how many are complete and meet the program’s criteria, and how much funding did they request; (c) how many proceeded to stage two of the application process, and how much funding did they request; (d) how many passed stage two, and how much funding did they request; (e) how many applications did the department expect to receive from Saskatchewan, (i) how many did it expect to proceed to stage two, (ii) how much funding did they expect be to requested at each stage; (f) what research was done to determine the need for the program in Saskatchewan; (g) did the department find that the demand for the financing available through WINN was not being met by the private sector in Saskatchewan; and (h) how many of WINN’s contributions does the government plan to be repaid in ten years?

Q-199² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the development and operation of the Canadian Multiple Sclerosis Monitoring System (CMSMS) announced in March 2011: (a) what are the government's baseline assumptions for the CMSMS, (i) how many Canadians live with MS according to the government’s source, (ii) what is the government's source; (b) what have been the challenges in developing the system between March 2011 and today, (i) how has each challenge been overcome, (ii) what are the achievements to date, (iii) what milestones has the government planned between December 2013 and December 2015 and by what dates; (c) what is the cost of developing the system, broken down by costs to date; (d) how much money did the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) contribute to the development of the CMSMS, (i) were there any other partners involved in the development of the system, (ii) if so, who are they, (iii) what has each contributed; (e) who was involved in the design and development of the CMSMS, (i) from what departments/institutions were they, (ii) were potential conflicts of interest declared and, if so, how; (f) what health information does the CMSMS track, specifically, with regard to (i) chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), (ii) impacts of CCSVI treatment, including but not limited to use of the following scales, Expanded Disability Status Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory, (iii) pharmaceutical treatments for MS, (vi) adverse drug reactions by MS drug; (g) who is/was overseeing pilot testing, (i) who is/was responsible for ensuring that patient information is/was protected, (ii) who is/was responsible for the integrity of the results; (h) were ethical reviews for pilot testing necessary and, if so, on what date did each pilot site pass ethical review; (i) when is pilot testing expected to/did it take place and at which MS clinics will/did testing occur; (j) on what date did recruitment of patients begin for each pilot site and what methods are/were used to recruit patients; (k) how many MS patients are/were recruited for each site and how is/was consistency ensured across sites; (l) what information are/were MS patients given about the pilot testing and how their information will be/was protected and used, (i) is/was participation voluntary, (ii) can/could patients pull out of the testing at any time, (iii) what health information is/was being tracked at each pilot site and at what time intervals, (iv) what health information is being/was tracked about CCSVI and impacts of CCSVI treatment, including but not limited to use of the following scales, Expanded Disability Status Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory, (v) what health information is/was being tracked about pharmaceutical treatments for MS, (vi) what adverse drug reactions are/were being tracked by MS drug; (m) what is the relationship between the clinical trials and the CMSMS, (i) will data be transferred from one to the other and, if so, how will this happen, (ii) when will it begin, (iii) who will be responsible for the oversight; (n) what are the estimated operating costs annually for the CMSMS and at what sites is/will the CMSMS operating/operate; (o) how much money is/will the CIHR contributing/contribute to the operation of the CMSMS, (i) are/will there be any other partners in the operation of the CMSMS and, if so, (ii) who are they, (iii) what will they each contribute; and (p) how will the results of pilot testing be communicated to patients, the medical community and the general public and by what date is reporting expected to occur?

Q-200² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to outside legal services provided by non-government lawyers, since 2006: (a) by what means does the government select external lawyers and law firms to provide legal services; (b) what role do ministers play in approving which law firms receive contracts related to outside legal services; (c) how many times have external law firms or lawyers been used for the purpose of providing advice, consultation or drafting of any government legislation or regulation and what were the subject matters of the proposed legislation or regulation; (d) how many times has the government sought outside legal advice from a lawyer or law firm from outside of Canada; and (e) how many times has the government sought legal advice, consultations or technical support from any non-Canadian law firm in the drafting of legislation or regulation?

Q-201² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard government owned aircrafts, since 2012: (a) what is the list of types of aircrafts operated by the government and the passenger capacity for each; (b) excluding aircrafts operated by the Department of National Defense, how many aircrafts are available for use by ministers; (c) excluding aircrafts operated by the Department of National Defense, how many times have ministers requested and used government aircrafts; and (d) excluding aircrafts operated by the Department of National Defense, how many times have ministers requested and used government aircraft for travel outside of Canada and for what purpose?

Q-202² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to removal orders, by country and for each calendar year from 2006-2013: (a) for each deportation order issued, what is (i) the departure order, (ii) the exclusions order, (iii) the specific reference in Canadian law that allowed for the order to be issued; and (b) for each deportation order executed, what is (i) the departure order, (ii) the exclusions order, (iii) the specific reference in Canadian law that allowed for the order to be issued?

Q-203² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to materials prepared for past ministers or their staff, from April 1, 2013 to present, for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number?

Q-204² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to materials prepared for past ministers or their staff, from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013, for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number?

Q-205² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to materials prepared for past or current deputy heads of departments, crown corporations and agencies or their staff from April 1, 2013 to present, for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number?

Q-206² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to software used by the government on all digital platforms: (a) what software is permitted for use, broken down by (i) servers, (ii) workstations and desktops, (iii) laptops and portable computers, (iv) personal digital assistants, cell phones and other personal electronics, (v) rationale; (b) for each subsection of (a), what software is banned from use; (c) for each subsection of (a) and (b), where is this software developed; and (d) for each subsection of (a) and (b), if the software is not released as an “open source“ (as defined by the Open Source Initiative) or “free software“ (as defined by the Free Software Foundation), are viable open source or free software alternatives available, (i) have they been explored, (ii) what was the rationale for their rejection?

Q-207² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (NAPWPS) released on October 5, 2010: (a) will the government issue annual reports on this plan, (i) if so, when will the annual reports for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 be issued, (ii) if not, why not; (b) what plans have been made for the mid-term review, particularly the scope, terms of reference, dedicated resources and schedule; (c) will Canadian civil society organisations be consulted or involved in conducting the mid-term review, (i) if so, when will these consultations begin, (ii) if not, why not; (d) what section, program or directorate within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development structure is responsible for coordinating the implementation of the NAPWPS; (e) in terms of previous commitments and new commitments, what resources have been committed and disbursed to support the implementation of the NAPWPS, broken down by fiscal year and department; and (f) will the government commit to making public the results of the mid-term review?

Q-208² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to Canada’s Muskoka Initiative: (a) what definition of family planning services is the government using; (b) what are the top five projects recipient of family planning funding and their amounts; and (c) regarding the $5 million Canada has pledged to fight early and forced marriage, is this new funding or redirected from funds under the Muskoka Initiative?

Q-209² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to grants and contributions approvals at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD): (a) for each minister, what is the grants and contributions approval process; (b) for each minister, as of December 11, 2013, how many grants or contributions applications have been approved by senior bureaucrats and await final approval from the minister; (c) for each minister, which programs currently have projects, grants or contributions awaiting approval by the minister; (d) for each grant or contribution currently awaiting approval from its respective minister, (i) under which program is this grant or contribution considered, (ii) on what date was the application, if relevant, received by the department, (iii) on what date was the application approved by the relevant DFATD staff, (iv) on what date was the application sent to the minister’s office, (v) on what date, if relevant, will each grant or contribution be approved; (e) what is the notification process for successful grant and contribution applications; and (f) in the last fiscal year, what was the average approval time period between receipt of a project or grant or contribution application and final decision?

Q-210² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) Processing Centres and EI Call Centres: (a) what goal has been set with respect to percentage of EI applications processed through automation; (b) what is the time table for achieving this goal; (c) what was the percentage of automation achieved in EI processing, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; (d) for EI processing centres, (i) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date, (ii) what is the variance in total employees and in the percentage of term versus indeterminate employees from one year to the next, (iii) what is the planned number of employees for fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, (iv) what is the rationale for any reductions in employees; (e) what is the service standard for processing claims that take longer than 28 days to process; (f) what has been the annual result in achieving this standard for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; (g) what are the reasons for not achieving the standard in the years requested, if applicable; (h) what is the EI call centre agent workday occupancy metric and what is the government's rationale for this measure; (i) what has been the EI call centre agent workday occupancy target and result, nationally and broken down by province, for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; (j) for EI call centres, (i) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date, (ii) what is the variance in total employees and percentage of term versus indeterminate employees from one year to the next, (iii) what is the planned number of employees for fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, (iv) what is the rationale for any reductions in employees; (k) how many EI claims were processed for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; and (l) with respect to the program indicator (percentage of initial and renewal EI claims finalized within 21 days from date of filing and 21 days of registration of revised EI claims), what was the standard and results achieved for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date and why was the standard not achieved?

Q-211² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the constituency of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, in fiscal year 2011-2012, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount, what is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency?

Q-212² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the constituency of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, in fiscal year 2012-2013, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount, what is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency?

Q-213² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to outside carbon storage and the risk of spontaneous combustion: (a) what safety precautions does the government require federally regulated companies to take to prevent fires; (b) how often are these facilities inspected; (c) what risk assessment carried out by the government was completed with respect to outdoor carbon storage and the risk of spontaneous combustion; (d) when were these assessments, if any, completed, what were the findings and which of these studies have been released; (e) what were the dates and findings of all inspections completed at the Port of Québec over the past five years; (f) what are the names and locations of each federally regulated company where bulk carbon is stored; (g) how many inspections were completed at each federally regulated site over the past five years; (h) how many inspectors were sent to complete this kind of inspection; (i) what emergency plans were implemented regarding the risk of spontaneous combustion of carbon on federally regulated sites and which department or agency is responsible for the implementation of emergency plans; and (j) what analyses were completed to study the government’s potential liability in the event of an emergency or major accident on a federally regulated site where carbon is stored?

Q-214² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to contaminated water from the Port of Québec flowing into the St. Lawrence River in July 2013: (a) what action was taken by the government in response to this incident; (b) were there any complaints filed by the public regarding this incident; (c) what were the findings of any investigations into such complaints; and (d) what action, if any, was taken to ensure that such an incident would not reoccur or to serve as a deterrent?

Q-215² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the Employment Insurance (EI) appeals process: (a) what was the rationale to replace the EI Board of Referees and EI Umpire process with the Social Security Tribunal (SST); (b) how many Boards of Referees and Board of Referee members were there at the end of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; (c) why were there reductions in the outstanding number of Board of Referees members year over year; (d) what was the standard for time to hear an initial appeal by the Board of Referees and the result in meeting the standard for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013; (e) what was the annual cost to government to administer the EI Board of Referees and EI Umpire appeals processes for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013; (f) how many EI appeals cases were outstanding with the EI Board of Referees as of March 31, 2013; (g) how many cases referenced in (f) received a decision from the EI Board of Referees as of October 31, 2013; (h) what was the expected annual cost savings to replace the Board of Referees and the EI Umpire appeals process with the EI general section and appeals section of the SST; (i) what is the cost of the EI section of the SST for the period April 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013 and how does it compare to the planned budget amount; (j) do cases dismissed by the SST EI section specifically state the right of the appellant to appeal the SST decision and the time period to do so, and if not, what is the legal basis for omitting such information; (k) how does the government ensure that appellants who do not have access to or know how to use the internet understand what their appeal rights are, if that is the only method through which they are made known; (l) how many EI appeals have been (i) sent to the EI General section, (ii) heard, (iii) decided since April 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013; (m) of the cases referred to in (l), how many appeals have been (i) allowed, (ii) summarily dismissed, (iii) dismissed; (n) what was the expected goal for the percentage of cases to be heard by the EI general section using (i) video, (ii) telephone, (iii) in person; (o) how many cases and percentage of cases heard by the EI general section have been (i) in person, (ii) by telephone, (iii) via video; and (p) are there official video conferencing centres that appellants must visit to have their case heard and, if so, (i) how many centres were there, (ii) where were they as of September 2013?

Q-216² — January 23, 2014 — — With respect to the Canada Job Grant (CJG): (a) how many stakeholder consultations took place since the CJG was announced; (b) where did the consultations take place; (c) which stakeholders received personal invitations; (d) which stakeholders participated in the consultations; (e) how many stakeholders submitted briefs concerning the CJG; (f) which trades or professions does the government believe the CJG will assist in training and what evidence does the government have to support this belief; (g) what is the total cost to date of media advertising for the CJG, broken down by (i) date of purchase, (ii) media type; (h) what evidence (including, but not limited to, statistics, documents and other data) was the basis for the creation of the CJG; (i) how many months of training does the government believe on average will be provided by the CJG; and (j) will training be limited to high demand occupation and, if so, what are they?

Q-217² — January 23, 2014 — — With regards to the indoor fish farming facility in Thames Centre, Middlesex County: (a) how much funding was issued; (b) was the funding a result of the promise of job creation; and (c) what verifications were made to ensure funding was spent appropriately?

Q-218² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which Alberta employers have been issued a positive Labour Market Opinion, broken down by region and National Occupation Classifications: (a) for Alberta's minimum wage in the following years, (i) September 1, 2005 – August 31, 2007: $7.00, (ii) September 1, 2007 – March 31, 2008: $8.00, (iii) April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2009: $8.40, (iv) April 1, 2009 – August 31, 2011: $8.80, (v) September 1, 2011 – present: $9.40; and (b) for the following wage rate ranges for the following years, (i) September 1, 2005 – August 31, 2007: $7.01-$7.50, (ii) September 1, 2007 – March 31, 2008: $8.01-8.50, (iii) April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2009: $8.41-$8.90, (iv) April 1, 2009 – August 31, 2011: $8.81-$9.30, (v) September 1, 2011 – August 31, 2012: $9.41-$9.90, (vi) September 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013: $9.76-$10.25, (vii) September 1, 2005 – August 31, 2007: $7.51-$8.00, (viii) September 1, 2007 – March 31, 2008: $8.51: $9.00, (ix) April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2009: $8.91- $9.40, (x) April 1, 2009 – August 31, 2011: $9.31-$9.80, (xi) September 1, 2011 – August 31, 2012: $9.91-$10.40, (xii) September 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013: $10.26-$10.75?

Q-219² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, what is the total number of entries of temporary foreign workers, and total number of temporary foreign workers present for each of the following areas, (i) Edmonton, (ii) Calgary, (iii) Wood Buffalo, (iv) Lethbridge, (v) Red Deer, (vi) Medicine Hat, (vii) Grande Prairie, (viii) other regions in Alberta?

Q-220² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the storage of wood pellets and the risk of fire: (a) what safety precautions does the government require federally regulated companies to take to prevent fires; (b) how often are these facilities inspected; (c) what risk assessment carried out by the government was completed with respect to the storage of wood pellets; (d) when were these assessments, if any, completed, what were the findings and which of these studies have been released; and (e) what analyses were completed to study the government’s potential liability in the event of an emergency or major accident on a federally regulated site where wood pellets are stored?

Q-221² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to employment with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, how many involuntary job reductions have been implemented in the department each year from 2006 to 2013, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program activity, (iii) sub-program activity, (iv) specific job description, (v) the reason for the involuntary reduction?

Q-222² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the EQuilibrium Communities Initiatives (ECI): (a) what information did the government have concerning the lobbying activities of (i) Groupe Pacific, (ii) Michael Bedzow, (iii) Suzanne Deschamps, (iv) Pacific International Inc., prior to its awarding of a $177,000 grant from the ECI to Groupe Pacific; (b) were the four entities listed in (a) registered as lobbyists with the government prior to the awarding of the ECI grant; (c) what actions has the government taken since certain activities in Quebec of the four entities listed in (a) were recognized as unregistered lobbying; (d) why did the government award a grant to that project; (e) what analysis and research has the government engaged in concerning the Meadowbrook Golf Course area; and (f) what kind of oversight mechanism does the government have over grants such as the ECI to ensure that the government does not provide support and funding to projects that operate contrary to the recommendations of municipal and provincial entities including, but not limited to, the Office de consultation publique de Montréal and the Montreal Urban Agglomeration Council?

Q-223² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the Bouchard Stream in Dorval, Quebec: (a) what environmental monitoring has been conducted on the health of this waterway; (b) what efforts has the government made to analyze the impact of Trudeau Airport on this waterway; (c) what efforts has the government made to ensure that the operator of the airport, Aéroports de Montréal, is complying with applicable acts and regulations pertaining to environmental issues, including, but not limited to, the Canadian Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; (d) does the government's policy call for the introduction of (i) enforcement mechanisms, (ii) legislation to address Aéroports de Montréal's impact on this waterway; and (e) has this waterway been designated as protected by the government at any time, (i) if so, under which acts (including the current Navigable Waters Protection Act) and during which years, (ii) if not, why was it not considered to warrant protection by the government?

Q-224² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to government spending in the constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine: what is the total amount of funding, for each fiscal year from 2010 to 2013 to date, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

Q-225² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the study and treatment of eating disorders: (a) how many major eating disorder studies have been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) including treatment, prevention or epidemiology research; (b) how many CIHR peer review committees include members who have expertise in eating disorders; (c) are questions about eating disorders included in national databases; (d) what Health Canada eating disorder initiatives are in place; (e) what are the reasons for which Health Canada does not include low body mass index (BMI) as a separate category; (f) is the Public Health Agency of Canada tracking eating disorders in terms of prevalence, access to treatment and availability of services; (g) is Statistics Canada tracking eating disorders; (h) what are the rates of eating disorders among First Nations, on reserve and in the territories; (i) what barriers to care for Aboriginal Canadians have been identified; (j) have eating disorders been integrated into obesity prevention initiatives in Aboriginal communities; (k) are these initiatives gender and culturally sensitive; (l) in the case of obesity-related research or healthy weight initiatives conducted by the government, are there safeguards in place to ensure ‘no harm’; (m) has the government conducted any research studies examining the full spectrum of eating disorders, from those affecting people with low BMIs to those affecting people with high BMIs; (n) what research efforts by Canada are underway to address those refractory cases currently being treated in long term care mental health facilities; (o) what actions is the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) taking concerning eating disorders; (p) are eating disorders included in MHCC reports; (q) of the MHCC management (board, executive staff and directors) are there any persons with expertise in eating disorders; (r) has the MHCC developed guidelines for treatment and/or prevention of eating disorders and, if not, why not; (s) have Health Canada or other government agencies performed a review of funded eating disorder services and, if not, why not; (t) have Health Canada or other government agencies tracked co-morbid disorders such as eating disorders coupled with psychiatric illnesses; and (u) have Health Canada or other government agencies tracked eating disorders coupled with medical disorders?

Q-226² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the government's announcement on May 28, 2012, that it will allocate $17.5 billion over five years to combat the invasion of Asian Carp in the Great Lakes Watershed through prevention, early warning, rapid response and management and control, what is: (a) the progress on these initiatives; and (b) the total amount of monies distributed in each focus area to date?

Q-227² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to the Prime Minister’s “24 Seven” videos: (a) what are the development, preparation and design costs for this project; (b) how many people are working on this project each week and what are their titles; (c) what is the weekly production cost; (d) how many times has each video been viewed; (e) who approves the final edit of these videos; (f) what equipment is used to produce and edit the videos and how much did this equipment cost; and (g) was a call for tenders issued for the production of these videos and, if so, what were the bids?

Q-228² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to language courses taken by ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries outside of Canada between January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2013, for each ot these courses: (a) in what establishment, city and country did each take place; (b) what were the dates for each; (c) who took each; (d) how much did each cost; and (e) what language was being taught in each?

Q-229² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to Industry Canada's Small Business Financing Program, broken down by fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what is the total number of applications filed for financing under the program; and (b) how many applications have been granted a loan and for what amount?

Q-230² — January 23, 2014 — — With regard to computer security products used by the government from RSA Security LLC (RSA): (a) what departments, agencies and crown corporations have used RSA products for each of the past eight years; (b) what departments, agencies and crowns corporations have contracted with RSA for each of the last seven years with details of (i) contract amount, (ii) contract length, (iii) services or products provided; and (c) what is the total amount of RSA SecurID cards purchased or acquired by each department, agency and crown corporation for each of the last seven years?

Q-231² — January 27, 2014 — — With regard to rail safety in Canada: (a) how many railway employee reports relating to safety, or to other safety concerns, has Transport Canada received since the amended Railway Safety Act came into force on May 1, 2013; (b) with regard to the reports in (a), what is Transport Canada's process for (i) reviewing, (ii) investigating, (iii) reporting, (iv) corrective measures, (v) safety advisories or bulletins; (c) with regard to the reports in (a), how many Transport Canada inspectors (i) have been assigned to review the reports, (ii) have performed on-site inspections as follow-up to the reports; (d) how many railway employee reports relating to safety, or to other safety concerns, has the Transportation Safety Board of Canada received for the period of 2006-2013; and (e) for each year since 2006, with regard to the reports in (d), how many (i) were for unsafe conditions, (ii) were for unsafe procedures and practices, (iii) required corrective action, (iv) were satisfactorily resolved?

Q-232² — January 27, 2014 — — With regard to Canadian government oil sands advertising in the United States: (a) in which states did the government purchase advertising; (b) how many advertisements were purchased; (c) what form of advertisements were purchased; (d) what was the duration of the advertising; (e) how much was the cost per advertisement; and (f) what was the projected reach of the advertisement?

Q-233² — January 27, 2014 — — With regard to requests by government agencies to telecommunications service providers (TSP) to provide information about customers’ usage of communications devices and services: (a) in 2012 and 2013, how many such requests were made; (b) of the total referred to in (a), how many requests were made by (i) RCMP, (ii) Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (iii) Competition Bureau, (iv) Canada Revenue Agency, (v) Canada Border Services Agency, (vi) Communications Security Establishment Canada; (c) for the requests referred to in (a), how many of each of the following types of information were requested, (i) geolocation of device (broken down by real-time and historical data), (ii) call detail records (as obtained by number recorders or by disclosure of stored data), (iii) text message content, (iv) voicemail, (v) cell tower logs, (vi) real-time interception of communications (i.e. wire-tapping), (vii) subscriber information, (viii) transmission data (e.g. duration of interaction, port numbers, communications routing data, etc.), (ix) data requests (e.g. web sites visited, IP address logs), (x) any other kinds of data requests pertaining to the operation of TSPs’ networks and businesses, broken down by type; (d) for each of the request types referred to in (c), what are all of the data fields that are disclosed as part of responding to a request; (e) of the total referred to in (a), how many of the requests were made (i) for real-time disclosures, (ii) retroactively, for stored data, (iii) in exigent circumstances, (iv) in non-exigent circumstances, (v) subject to a court order; (f) of the total referred to in (a), (i) how many of the requests did TSPs fulfill, (ii) how many requests did they deny and for what reasons; (g) do the government agencies that request information from TSPs notify affected TSP subscribers that information pertaining to their telecommunications service has been accessed by the government, (i) if so, how many subscribers are notified per year, (ii) by which government agencies; (h) for each type of request referred to in (c), broken down by agency, (i) how long is the information obtained by such requests retained by government agencies, (ii) what is the average time period for which government agencies request such information (e.g. 35 days of records), (iii) what is the average amount of time that TSPs are provided to fulfil such requests, (iv) what is the average number of subscribers who have their information disclosed to government agencies; (i) what are the legal standards that agencies use to issue the requests for information referred to in (c); (j) how many times were the requests referred to in (c) based specifically on grounds of (i) terrorism, (ii) national security, (iii) foreign intelligence, (iv) child exploitation; (k) what is the maximum number of subscribers that TSPs are required by government agencies to monitor for each of the information types identified in (c); (l) has the government ever ordered (e.g. through ministerial authorization or a court order) the increase of one of the maximum numbers referred to in (k); (m) do TSPs ever refuse to comply with requests for information identified in (c) and, if so, (i) why were such requests refused, (ii) how do government agencies respond when a TSP refuses to comply; and (n) in 2012 and 2013, did government agencies provide money or other forms of compensation to TSPs in exchange for the information referred to in (a) and, if so, (i) how much money have government agencies paid, (ii) are there different levels of compensation for exigent or non-exigent requests?

Q-234² — January 27, 2014 — — With regard to tracking by government agencies of customers’ usage of communications devices and services: do government agencies use their own (i) tracking products (e.g. "IMSI Catchers"), (ii) infiltration software (e.g. zero day exploits, malware such as FinFisher, etc.), (iii) interception hardware (i.e. placed within or integrated with a company’s network)?

Q-235² — January 27, 2014 — — With regard to government spending in the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie: what was the total amount of funding for each fiscal year from 2010 to 2013 to the present, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

Q-236² — January 27, 2014 — — With regard to FedNor's Community Futures Program, broken down by fiscal year, since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what is the total number of applications filed for financing under the program; and (b) how many applicants have been granted a loan and for what amount?

Q-237² — January 27, 2014 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what is the Department’s information management (IM) strategy; (b) on what date was the IM strategy established; (c) who participated in the development of the IM strategy; (d) which groups or organizations were consulted or gave input in developing the IM strategy; (e) which departments, agencies or offices were consulted or gave input in developing the IM strategy; (f) which individuals were consulted or gave input in developing the IM strategy; (g) what is the DFO Records Retention Plan; (h) on what date was the Records Retention Plan established; (i) who participated in the development of the Records Retention Plan; (j) which groups were consulted or gave input in developing the Records Retention Plan; (k) which departments, agencies and offices were consulted or gave input in developing the Records Retention Plan; (l) which individuals were consulted in developing the Records Retention Plan; and (m) what are the benchmarks for record retention?

Q-238² — January 27, 2014 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) consolidation of 11 DFO libraries into four DFO libraries: (a) which groups were consulted or gave input in developing the consolidation of DFO libraries; (b) which departments, agencies and offices were consulted or gave input in developing the consolidation of DFO libraries; (c) which individuals were consulted or gave input in developing the consolidation of DFO libraries; (d) how many titles were held by DFO libraries in each of the last five years; (e) how many titles are currently held in DFO libraries; (f) how many titles are projected to be held in DFO libraries in 2015; (g) which documents were digitized prior to consolidation and what was the criteria to determine priority/order of documents digitized; (h) how and by whom was the digitization plan developed and contracted; (i) how much time was given for digitization prior to the disposal of documents; (j) what documents are no longer available in DFO libraries; (k) what is the acquisition plan for new materials, (i) how was this acquisition plan developed, (ii) by whom, (iii) who was consulted, (iv) on what date, (v) when was this plan implemented; (l) how does the cost of acquisition compare with the cost of retention; (m) how do the findings in (y) compare with the projected trends for the acquisition and retention plans for the next five years; (n) what cost-benefit analyses were undertaken regarding the consolidation of DFO libraries, (i) by whom, (ii) on what date, (iii) what metrics were developed to assess the benefits of consolidation of DFO libraries, (iv) what metrics were developed to assess the benefits of material retention, (v) what qualitative factors were considered in the decision-making process, (vi) how were these considered, (vii) by whom, (viii) on what date; (o) in what way was the public informed of the consolidation plan, (i) on what dates, (ii) with what process for consultation, (iii) with what timeline for participation; (p) in what ways was public input considered in the decision to consolidate the DFO libraries; (q) in what ways was the public informed of the ultimate decision; (r) which non-governmental stakeholders were identified in development of this policy; (s) in what ways were non-governmental stakeholders informed of the consolidation plan, (i) on what dates, (ii) with what process for consultation, (iii) with what timeline for participation; (t) in what ways was non-governmental stakeholders' input considered in the decision to consolidate the DFO libraries; (u) in what ways were non-governmental stakeholders informed of the ultimate decision; (v) in what way were parliamentarians informed of the consolidation plan, (i) on what dates, (ii) with what process for consultation, (iii) with what timeline for participation; (w) in what ways was the input of parliamentarians considered in the decision to consolidate the DFO libraries; (x) in what ways were parliamentarians informed of the ultimate decision; (y) for the last 10 years, broken down by DFO library, what equipment has been requested and provided, and which libraries were provided with additional resources for the purpose of digitizing their collections; (z) for the last 10 years, broken down by DFO library, how many staff have been employed in full-time equivalents (FTE); (aa) for the last 10 years, broken down by DFO library, how many staff have been trained in digitization, by FTE; (bb) for the last 10 years, broken down by DFO library, how many staff have been trained in retention, by FTE; (cc) what partnership agreements or information-sharing agreements do DFO libraries have with other library institutions and how are these agreements impacted by library consolidation; (dd) what service standards does DFO develop for its libraries, (i) how have these standards been impacted by library consolidation, (ii) broken down by the last five years, what service standards were established, (iii) broken down by the next five years, what service standards are projected; (ee) were any collection documents shredded; (ff) were any collection documents incinerated; (gg) what plans were in place to ensure that disposal of collection materials would be done in an environmentally-friendly way; (hh) were the disposed materials considered for donations, (i) did the government reach out to any organizations or institutions to assess interest in the donation of these materials, (ii) did the government donate any titles to any organization or institution, (iii) did the government receive any requests for donations, (iv) how did the government respond to these requests; (ii) what plans and mechanisms are in place to assess the long-term impact of this policy change, and what reports will be published concerning any consequences; (jj) have any disposed titles been identified as having important scientific impact or value; (kk) have any disposed titles been identified as having important cultural impact or value; (ll) have any disposed titles been identified as having important historical impact or value; (mm) what percentage of disposed material was Canadian content; (nn) were any collection documents not digitized before disposal, and if so, why; and (oo) with the closure of the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, (i) what will the consequences and repercussions of the closure of this institution be, (ii) what were the plans and consultations around prioritization of digitalization and physical preservation of the Institute’s French-language documents, (iii) with whom did the plans and consultations take place, (iv) are there plans for the establishment of other French-language libraries?

Q-239² — January 27, 2014 — — With regard to the appointment to the Supreme Court of Justice Marc Nadon, and the information provided to MPs on the ad hoc committee and available on the website of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada which notes that “Each candidate was asked to identify five decisions for particular consideration by the Panel, preferably dealing with issues coming within the usual scope of the Supreme Court of Canada […] As far as possible, the choice of five decisions was to reflect at least one of each of the following areas of law: constitutional law (Charter or federalism), criminal law (or national security), civil law, administrative law, and the candidates’ choice”: (a) how was this list of areas of law developed; (b) who determined which areas of law to be included; (c) by what criteria were the areas of law determined; (d) how were these areas identified; (e) how were areas of knowledge important to the court identified and assessed; (f) in what ways was the particular legal expertise of the departing justice assessed; (g) what impact does the particular legal expertise of the departing justice have on the development of the areas of law sought; (h) how was five determined to be the appropriate number of cases; (i) for each of the last eight appointment cycles, broken down by cycle, (i) how many cases were sought from candidates, (ii) which specific areas of law were to be reflected, (iii) what other judicial writings were sought, if any, (iv) what is the equivalent wording to the phrases identified in the question, (v) how were the areas of law determined, (vi) how was the number of cases determined, (vii) how long were candidates given to provide cases and materials, (viii) were candidates given a choice between Charter or federalism within the area of constitutional law, (ix) were candidates given a choice between criminal or national security, (x) was national security in any way part of the area list, (xi) were candidates asked for academic or research works, (xii) were candidates allowed to provide academic or research works, (xiii) were candidates asked for speeches, (xiv) were candidates allowed to provide speeches, (xv) in what way were the case exigencies communicated to candidates; (j) what mechanisms exist for ensuring the appropriateness, relevance, and probative value of the materials sought from candidates; (k) what mechanisms or processes exist to ensure a candidate’s choice of cases conforms with the areas of law specified; (l) what restrictions are there on the areas of law for which cases could be sought; (m) what ensures that only cases of types that would be heard by the Supreme Court would be sought from candidates; (n) what ensures that the areas of law specified reflect the workload of the Supreme Court; (o) whose ultimate responsibility is the development of the list of areas of law for which candidates are asked to submit cases; (p) what role exists for Parliament in the determination of this list; (q) what is the role of the Minister of Justice in the determination of the number of cases sought from candidates; (r) what is the role of the Minister of Justice in the determination of the areas of law sought from candidates; (s) what is the role of the Prime Minister in the determination of the number of cases sought from candidates; (t) what is the role of the Prime Minister in the determination of the areas of law sought from candidates; (u) what is the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs in the determination of the number of cases sought from candidates; (v) what is the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs in the determination of the areas of law sought from candidates; (w) what is the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs in the process of ensuring candidates provide the information sought; (x) does the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs provide advice to the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister on the information that should be sought from candidates; (y) does the Department of Justice provide advice to the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister on the information that should be sought from candidates; (z) with whom does the Minister of Justice consult on the information that should be sought from candidates; (aa) with whom does the Prime Minister consult on the information that should be sought from candidates; (bb) with regard to the areas of law identified for the Nadon appointment, (i) how do these differ, if at all, from those identified for the vacancy that resulted in the appointment of Justice Wagner, (ii) with whom did the Minister of Justice consult in identifying these areas of law, (iii) with whom did the Prime Minister consult in identifying these areas of law; (cc) with what other agencies or departments does the Prime Minister’s Office work or consult in developing the list of areas of law; (dd) with what external organizations, individuals or groups did the Prime Minister’s Office work or consult in developing this list of areas of case law to be sought; (ee) how much did the development of this list cost and what is the breakdown for this figure; (ff) how much did the overall appointment process cost and what is the breakdown for this figure; (gg) how much have the previous five appointment cycles cost and what are the breakdowns for these figures; (hh) in what ways is Parliament informed of the number and type of cases being sought from candidates to the Supreme Court; (ii) what requirements are provided to candidates, if any, regarding how recent decisions must be in the areas of laws indicated; (jj) if cases provided are unilingual, whose responsibility is the translation of said judgment and who bears the cost for translation; (kk) for whose benefit are the cases provided; and (ll) who reviews the cases if not a panel of MPs?

Q-240² — January 27, 2014 — — With regard to proposals approved for funding by the former Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), for fiscal years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, in an Excel spreadsheet, broken down by (i) the fiscal year when the project was approved, (ii) the title of the project, (iii) the amount that was approved, (iv) the date (year-month-day) that the proposal was received by CIDA in its final form, (v) the date (year-month-day) that an approval memo was first delivered to the Minister’s Office for consideration as indicated in CIDA's memo tracking system, (vi) the date (year-month-day) that the proposal received final approval, what were: (a) all the proposals approved for funding by the Multilateral Branch; (b) all the proposals approved for funding by the Geographic or Bilateral Branch; and (c) all the proposals approved for funding by the Partnership with Canadians Branch?

Q-241² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to Shared Services Canada’s recent registration of telephone services, completed on January 20, 2014: (a) how many (i) traditional telephones including Voice over Internet Protocol, (ii) cellular telephones, (iii) BlackBerry devices, (iv) pagers, (v) other smartphones, were registered by Shared Service Canada employees and each of its partner organizations; and (b) how many suspensions of telephone service did this registration exercise lead to?

Q-242² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to briefing documents prepared since July 17, 2013 for the Minister of Transport or her staff regarding Canada Post, for each document, what is: (i) the date, (ii) the title or subject matter, (iii) the Department’s internal tracking number?

Q-243² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to Health Canada's approval to Mylan Pharmaceuticals to produce a generic Suboxone treatment: (a) what frameworks exist to ensure that pharmaceutical companies whose drugs are granted approval for use in Canada conduct business in a way that is responsible and accountable to Canadians; (b) does the Department have a framework in place to properly screen for, and assess, conflicts of interest involving manufacturers of prescription drugs that produce both an addictive medication as well as producing its addictive treatment, and, if so, can the department withdraw an approval until the conflict of interest is resolved; and (c) will the Minister of Health ensure that no pharmaceutical company is permitted to bill taxpayers for both a highly addictive drug, and the treatment for the addiction that can result?

Q-244² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to Canadians with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): (a) how much money has the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) invested or allocated into researching ME/CFS in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, specifically into: (i) the etiology, (ii) diagnostic markers, (iii) pathophysiology, (iv) treatment of ME/CFS; (b) how much research has CIHR funded into treating ME/CFS with (i) Rituximab, (ii) other autoimmune medications, (iii) anti-viral medications, (iv) other medications; (c) what strategies has CIHR designed and implemented to ensure that ME/CFS research is fairly funded; (d) what strategies has CIHR designed and implemented to (i) develop a ME/CFS scientific research community in Canada, (ii) ensure that the ME/CFS research community is multidisciplinary bringing together immunologists, neurologists, cardiologists, endocrinologists, system biologists, geneticists, etc.; (e) has CIHR considered creating a new institute to focus on this emerging area; (f) has CIHR outlined areas of ME/CFS research as priorities for funding, and designating a specific amount of money for ME/CFS research and, if so, how much; (g) will CIHR amend the grant application process to remove the barriers for new and stigmatized conditions to ensure that ME/CFS as an emerging area of research has a fair chance of being funded; (h) how has the government, including (i) Health Canada (HC), (ii) CIHR, (iii) Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), (iv) Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), (v) Statistics Canada (StatCan), (vi) Department of Justice Canada (JUS), (vii) Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) and (viii) Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) educated itself on ME/CFS; (i) did representatives from (i) HC, (ii) CIHR, (iii) PHAC attend or will they be attending (1) the Invest in ME International Conferences, (2) the Biennial International Association for CFS/ME Conference in Ottawa in 2011, (3) 2014 Stanford University ME/CFS Symposium on March 19, 2014, (4) the Biennial International Association for CFS/ME Conference co-hosted by Stanford University from March 20-23, 2014; (j) to what extent has the government, including (i) HC, (ii) CIHR, (iii) PHAC, (iv) ESDC, (v) StatCan, (vi) JUS, (vii) TBS, (viii) CRA, fulfilled its obligation under the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (article 4.3) to closely consult with and actively involve people with ME/CFS through their representative organizations, notably the National ME/FM Action Network; (k) when will (i) the Minister of Health, (ii) Health Canada (iii) CIHR, (iv) PHAC, (v) ESDC, (vi) StatCan, (vii) JUS, (viii) TBS, (ix) CRA next meet with the National ME/FM Action Network; (l) when will foundational documents, notably (i) CFS/ME: A Primer for Clinical Practitioners, (ii) Profile and Impact of 23 Chronic Conditions in the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey, be posted on government information websites in English and French; (m) how is the government working with the provinces, territories, professional organizations, educational institutions and other stakeholders to meet the needs of Canadians with ME/CFS; (n) what steps has the government taken to ensure that ME/CFS patients in its jurisdiction have access to appropriate medical care; (o) how many medical professionals in Canada including (i) doctors, (ii) nurses currently specialize in ME/CFS and how is the Health Human Resources Strategy ensuring that there will be an adequate supply of health providers specializing in ME/CFS in Canada in the future; (p) how is the Health Care Policy Contribution Program being used to improve health care for ME/CFS patients; (q) how is the government working with stakeholders to deal with other needs of Canadians with ME/CFS shown by the 2005 and 2010 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) including (i) reducing the levels of unmet home care needs, (ii) reducing the levels of food insecurity, (iii) increasing the sense of community belonging experienced by Canadians with this condition; (r) why has the CCHS decided to monitor the extent and impact of ME/CFS, only every four years; (s) will the government review disability programs and services to ensure that they cover the full spectrum of disabilities so that people with ME/CFS have fair and equitable access and will the government review the information and documents it disseminates to ensure that ME/CFS issues are presented adequately and fairly; (t) when will the Canada Pension Plan-Disability Adjudication Tool that guides adjudicators in their assessment of ME/CFS, Fibromyalgia, Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and Chronic Pain cases be reviewed in conjunction with the stakeholder communities to ensure that people with the conditions have fair and equal access to Canada Pension Plan-Disability; and (u) when will the Canada Pension Plan-Disability Adjudication Tool that guides adjudicators in their assessment of ME/CFS, Fibromyalgia, Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and Chronic Pain cases be posted on government websites?

Q-245² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations: (a) how many applications to become licensed producers have been received by Health Canada; (b) from which municipality or township does each application come; (c) how many applications have been approved and in what municipality or township are they located; (d) what has been the cost to Health Canada to implement the new regulations; (e) will there be sufficient supply of medical marihuana as of April 1, 2014 to fulfill the medical needs of current patients and, if not, how will Health Canada ensure that there is no interruption in supply; and (f) once a patient submits their prescription or current license to grow marihuana at home to a licensed producer, will the patient be permitted to switch to a different producer if they find a more competitive price?

Q-246² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to the introduction of reforms planned to the grant funding programs of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), including, but not limited to, the proposed “Foundation Scheme”: (a) where and when will interruptions in funding occur, how many positions (researchers, staff and trainees) will be impacted for the 2015 and 2016 funding periods, and what amount of funding would normally be available to applicants during these periods; (b) what steps is the government taking to mitigate any potential funding gaps, or extend the funding, for any highly-qualified personnel and trainees impacted; and (c) does the government intend to allocate contingency funding to CIHR, earmarked for gaps that become evident as the reforms are introduced?

Q-247² — January 28, 2014 — — 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, Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, for each of these departments or agencies during the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013: (a) how many media requests were received, broken down by date, topic, requestor, person requested for interview/comment, method of request (email, phone call, letter, etc.), and approval status; (b) how many media requests were completed, broken down by date of request, date of response, topic, requestor, person who provided the interview/comment, method of request (email, phone call, letter, etc.), and method of response (email, phone call, letter, etc.); (c) how many media requests were not completed, broken down by date of request, topic, requestor, person requested for interview/comment, and reason the request was declined; (d) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from cabinet regarding the communications policy, including document and file numbers; (e) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from cabinet regarding specific media requests, broken down by date of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order, and document and file number of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order; (f) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from the departments named regarding the communications policy, including document and file numbers; (g) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from the departments named regarding specific media requests, broken down by date of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order, and document and file number of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order; (h) what trends has each department named observed with respect to the total number of media requests, those answered and those declined; (i) what accounts for any trends observed in (h); (j) which media requests were referred to cabinet at any point and why; (k) which media requests were referred to the Prime Minister’s Office at any point and why; (l) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the communications policy, including document and file numbers; and (m) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from the Prime Minister’s Office regarding specific media requests, broken down by date of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order, and document and file number of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order?

Q-248² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario's Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund: (a) broken down by successful applicant's project name, description, project location, postal code of project location, and federal contribution, how many individual jobs, in full-time equivalents, were created; (b) for each of the jobs in (a), how long is each job projected to last; (c) broken down by the successful applicant's project name, description, project location, postal code of project location, and federal contribution, how many individual jobs, in full-time equivalents, were maintained for at least one year; (d) broken down by the successful applicant's project name, description, project location, postal code of project location, and federal contribution, how many individual jobs, in full-time equivalents, were maintained for at least two years; (e) what were the criteria for determining success of applicants; (f) who is responsible for deciding what criteria determines the success of applicants; (g) who is responsible for evaluating applications, and under what authority; (h) which departments, agencies or offices were consulted or gave input in developing evaluation tools for applications; (i) which groups and organizations were consulted or gave input in developing evaluation tools for applications; (j) which individuals were consulted or gave input in developing evaluation tools for applications; and (k) broken down by postal code, how many applications were received?

Q-249² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to wastewater produced by the hydraulic fracturing process: (a) what federal guidelines govern the release of this wastewater into Canada's watercourses; (b) what federal guidelines govern the use of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing in the production of other products like cement; (c) in what way do the guidelines in (a) and (b) take into account the chemical composition of the wastewater to be (i) released into watercourses, (ii) used in the production process for other products; (d) when wastewater from hydraulic fracturing is used in the production of other goods, (i) is this wastewater considered a release of chemicals into the environment, (ii) must this be reported in the National Pollutants Release Inventory; and (e) what is the volume of wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing in Canada, per year since 2010, broken down by province?

Q-250 — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to the Wolseley Barracks: (a) what was the reason for the 2013 demolition of the three buildings at the Barracks; (b) why has said work been called to a halt; (c) how much is the demolition predicted to cost; (d) how much money was spent on repairs to the three buildings between 2008 and 2013; (e) how much is the demolition supposed to save in the long run; and (f) how will those receiving training at Wolseley Barracks be housed once all the designated buildings are gone?

Q-251² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to the importance of regularly updating and enforcing the Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: (a) when will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food commit to providing sustained funding for the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC); (b) how does the Minister anticipate enforcement of these Codes will be funded and executed; and (c) will the Minister commit to independent, third-party verification of the NFACC Codes of Practice to ensure that producers are compliant with these industry Codes?

Q-252² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to the ongoing negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change and in accordance with decision -/CP.1 ("Further Advancing the Durban Platform") of the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties in Warsaw, “To invite all Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined contributions [...] and to communicate them [...] in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the intended contributions”: (a) which steps have already been undertaken by the government to determine Canada's contribution to the global effort to address climate change under the Convention in the post-2020 period; (b) what are the government's further plans to undertake the work necessary to determine a contribution by Canada to the global effort to address climate change under the Convention and to do so with a view of being able to communicate this commitment well in advance of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties in early 2015; (c) which steps have already been undertaken and what are the government's further plans to establish a framework of criteria for determining (i) that the "nationally determined contribution", referred to above, constitutes a “fair contribution” by Canada in accordance with the principles of the Convention, including taking into account Canada's responsibility and capability and other countries' development and adaptation needs, (ii) that the contribution is sufficient to achieve the overall aim of limiting global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels; (d) what are the government's plans to ensure public participation and the involvement of MPs in this process and how does the government plan to consult with climate scientists, economists, First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, members of the business community, members of civil society, legal experts, and other Canadians on Canada's contribution; (e) how does the government plan to involve other levels of government, including provincial, territorial, First Nations and municipal, into the overall planning process, given that a substantial part of the overall contribution will have to be implemented by other levels of government; (f) in the event that Canada fails to achieve its current national climate target for 2020, what are the government's plans for making up for any pre-2020 shortfall in the post-2020 period; and (g) is the Prime Minster going to represent Canada at the high-level summit on climate change, to be convened by the Secretary General of the United Nations on September 23, 2014 and, if so, what pledges will the Prime Minister bring with him to the summit and, if not, who will be representing the government at this event?

Q-253² — January 28, 2014 — — With regard to the publication of draft updates to the sections of the Health of Animals Regulations concerning the transportation of farm animals within Canada: (a) will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food take immediate steps to publish draft proposed regulatory changes in the Canada Gazette; (b) will the Minister increase funding to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to fund increased numbers of inspectors to enforce existing and future regulations; and (c) will the Minister invite the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to examine the current crisis affecting animals in transport and to report back on the situation as it stands?

Q-254² — January 29, 2014 — — With regard to government spending in the federal electoral district of Sherbrooke: what is the total amount of spending since fiscal year 2010 up to and including the current fiscal year to date, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

Q-255² — January 29, 2014 — — With regard to data, information, or privacy breaches involving government departments, institutions and agencies, for 2013: (a) how many breaches have occurred in total, broken down by (i) department, institution or agency, (ii) the number of individuals affected by the breach; (b) of those breaches identified in (a), how many have been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, broken down by (i) department, institution or agency, (ii) the number of individuals affected by the breach; and (c) how many breaches are known to have led to criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft, broken down by department, institution or agency?

Q-256² — January 29, 2014 — — With regard to briefing documents prepared for all senior associate deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers from April 1, 2013 to present, what are (i) the dates, (ii) the titles or subject matters, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?

Q-257² — January 29, 2014 — — With regard to the Buffalo search-and-rescue (SAR) aircraft: (a) what spare parts were purchased during fiscal years (i) 2009-2010, (ii) 2010-2011, (iii) 2011-2012, (iv) 2012-2013; (b) from which countries were these parts purchased; (c) what was the cost of each part; (d) what constitutes "continued airworthiness" of the Buffalo SAR aircraft; (e) what are the safety implications of using engines "of a different variant" for the Buffalo SAR aircraft; (f) how many of the six Buffalo and eight Hercules SAR aircraft are currently in working condition; (g) what were the maintenance costs of the Buffalo SAR aircraft during fiscal years (i) 2009-2010, (ii) 2010-2011, (iii) 2011-2012, (iv) 2012-2013; (h) what strategies are being considered to maintain airworthiness of the Buffalo SAR aircraft prior to the arrival of replacement aircraft; (i) how many occasions were the requested Buffalo SAR aircraft unavailable when called upon in calendar years (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (j) how many aircraft manufacturers have indicated interest in competing for the Buffalo SAR aircraft replacement contract; (k) is the Italian C-27J Spartan one of the options being considered; (l) when are the first replacements of the Buffalo SAR aircraft due to arrive; and (m) when will the entire new fleet be fully operational?

Q-258² — January 29, 2014 — — With regard to the government's upcoming commemoration of historic military milestones: (a) which military battles and accomplishments will be commemorated in the next six years by the Department of National Defence (DND); (b) from which program and subprogram budgets will the monies required to fund the commemorations be derived; (c) which budgets will fund the Prime Minister's announced "cross-country consultations" regarding the upcoming commemoration of military milestones; (d) who will be consulted during these consultations; (e) will DND be expected to provide resources to non-military commemorations, such as the celebrations of Canada's 150th anniversary; (f) how much money does the government expect to spend on military commemorations in fiscal years (i) 2013-2014, (ii) 2014-2015, (iii) 2015-2016; (g) from which program budgets will the necessary funds be taken in fiscal years (i) 2013-2014, (ii) 2014-2015, (iii) 2015-2016; (h) how much of the funding for these commemorations will come from Heritage Canada; (i) which personnel and equipment will DND be expected to provide for each of these commemorations; (j) which budgets will cover the cost of transport and deployment of the personnel and equipment for these commemorations; (k) will any funding for these commemorations come from the operations planning capacity, the Canadian Army budget, or the normal operations budget; (l) how much money has been given to fund "Operation Distinction" to date; (m) from which program budgets have funds been used for "Operation Distinction" to date; and (n) will any more funding be given to "Operation Distinction" over the next six years?

Q-259² — January 29, 2014 — — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources advertising request for proposal, file No. cz025.23582-140223: (a) what is the total contract value; (b) broken down by individual expense and totaled for each country location, what (i) are the expected costs, (ii) is the medium of advertising, i.e. print, television, internet, radio, etc., (iii) is the language; (c) will the campaign promote renewable resources, and, if so, broken down by specific renewable resource, what percentage of the total budget will be allocated to promote each type of renewable resource; (d) what evidence was used to determine the need for this advertising campaign; (e) are there similar advertising campaigns planned or carried out by the government, and, if so, what is the (i) file number of each contract, (ii) purpose of each campaign, (iii) total cost for each contract; (f) broken down by individual organization, which targeted intense and sustained international and domestic public relations campaigns in particular does the statement of work refer to; (g) how does the government plan to monitor the effectiveness of the advertising campaign in the (i) short term, (ii) medium term, (iii) long term; (h) on what dates will the government publicly publish the results referred to in (g); and (i) what steps is the government taking to ensure it satisfies section 23 of the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada?

Q-260² — January 29, 2014 — — With regard to Canada Post: (a) how is a rural area defined for the purposes of post office services; (b) how is an urban area defined for the purposes of post office services; (c) are there classifications for locations other than rural and urban, and if so, what are they; (d) how many post offices in Canada have been closed since 2006, broken down by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) totaled by province and federal riding; (e) how many post offices in Canada have had their hours of operation reduced since 2006, broken down by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) total hours reduced by province and federal riding; (f) how many post offices in Canada have seen a reduction in their total number of employees working inside the post office (such as postal clerks, mail handlers, postmasters, etc.) since 2006, broken down by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) totaled by province and federal riding; (g) how many post offices is Canada Post planning to close, listed and totaled by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) totaled by province and federal riding; (h) how many post offices is Canada Post planning to reduce service hours, broken down by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) totaled by province and federal riding; and (i) how many employees working inside post offices does Canada Post plan to terminate (such as postal clerks, mail handlers, postmasters, etc.), broken down by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) totaled by province and federal riding?

Q-261² — January 29, 2014 — — With regard to the closure of the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre St. John’s (MRSC St. John’s), operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, in May, 2012, and its consolidation with the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Halifax (JRCC Halifax): (a) how many search-and-rescue (SAR) cases has the JRCC Halifax handled from 2006, through to the closure of the MRSC St. John’s, broken down by month and totaled by year; (b) how many SAR cases has the JRCC Halifax handled since the closure of the MRSC St. John’s which would have previously been handled by MRSC St. John’s, broken down by month and year; (c) what tactical measures were undertaken by the government to mitigate SAR service losses to areas formerly serviced by MRSC St. John’s; (d) were there additional employees hired at JRCC Halifax to deal with the increased workload from the closure of MRSC St. John’s and, if so, how many additional employees, broken down by full-time, part-time and contractual employment; and (e) what training, if any, was given to existing and new staff at JRCC Halifax specific to ensuring local knowledge of (i) the unique Newfoundland and Labrador dialects, (ii) geographic makeup of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Q-262² — January 29, 2014 — — With regard to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board’s (C-NLOPB) oversight of operator activity for legislative and regulatory compliance in areas of safety, environmental protection, resource management and industrial benefits: (a) what steps has the government taken to address the issue of safety, as defined by Justice Robert Wells on page 303 of the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry Report, with regard to (i) prevention of injury, (ii) prevention of loss of life, (iii) the protection of the environment; (b) what steps is the government planning to take to address (i) prevention of injury, (ii) prevention of loss of life, (iii) the protection of the environment; (c) is the government’s definition of safety consistent with Justice Wells’ definition of safety on page 303 of his report, and if not, what is the reason for the discrepancy; (d) is it the government’s policy to address recommendation 29 of the Report and create an independent safety regulator, and, if so, for what reasons; (e) has the government received any correspondence from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador supporting recommendation 29 of the Report, and if so, (i) what was the nature of this correspondence, (ii) what was the government’s response to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador; (f) does the C-NLOPB require all companies to report adrift oil rigs; (g) on what date was the C-NLOPB first informed that the drilling rig GSF Grand Banks was adrift; and (h) did the C-NLOPB notify the public that the drilling rig GSF Grand Banks was adrift, (i) why or why not, (ii) on what date was the public notified, (iii) was there any delay between the first discovery of the adrift oil rig by the C-NLOPB and the disclosure to the public?

Q-263 — January 29, 2014 — — With regard to questions on the Order Paper numbers Q-1 through Q-253, what is the estimated cost of the government's response for each question?

Q-264² — January 30, 2014 — — With regard to Canada Post’s Five-Point Action Plan: Ready for the Future: (a) when was the government first made aware of the initiative; (b) on what date was Transport Canada first informed of the initiative; (c) were any instructions or comments given by Transport Canada to Canada Post during the process of corporate planning and, if so, what were they; (d) how did Transport Canada analyze Canada Post's corporate plan, (i) how long did it take, (ii) what were Transport Canada’s conclusions, (iii) were any recommendations made and, if so, what were they, (iv) was a deadline for the review and analysis ever established and, if so, what was the deadline; and (e) what approvals were needed by the Department of Finance, (i) when was the Department of Finance first contacted on this matter, (ii) what, specifically, was its response, (iii) was a deadline for the review and analysis ever established and, if so, what was the deadline?

Q-265² — January 30, 2014 — — With regard to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's joint review panel for Enbridge Northern Gateway: (a) what is the total cost of the joint review panel; (b) what is the total cost by standard object for each year of the joint review panel; and (c) what is the spending by each year for travel?

Q-266² — January 31, 2014 — — 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, New Brunswick, (ii) the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, (iii) the Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia, (iv) the Pacific Region Headquarters Library, Vancouver, British Columbia, (v) the Eric Marshall Aquatic Research Library, Winnipeg, Manitoba, (vi) the Maurice Lamontagne Institute Library, Mont-Joli, Quebec, (vii) the Mère Juliette Library of the Gulf Fisheries Centre, Moncton, New Brunswick: (a) was the general public given the opportunity to salvage or obtain library materials which would otherwise have been discarded during the consolidation process; (b) if so, through what media or methods, and when was this opportunity communicated to the public; and (c) on what dates and times did the public, or will the public, have that opportunity?

Q-267² — February 3, 2014 — — With regard to the practice of confining laying hens to battery cages, and with particular reference to the fact that resolutions have been passed by Egg Farmers of Canada and the provincial egg boards of Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec to impose a moratorium on the construction of new battery cage facilities by December 31, 2014, with other egg-producing provinces currently considering the same resolution: (a) is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food working with industry to ensure that the use of these intensive confinement systems is phased out on Canadian farms; (b) will the Minister provide concrete support and incentives for an ambitious timeline for the phase-out of the use of battery cage facilities across Canada; (c) will the Minister provide immediate funding to the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) to provide them with the short-term funds they need to complete the review of the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Laying Hens; and (d) will the Minister commit to working with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to develop an on-farm inspection program to verify the welfare standards established in the NFACC Codes of Practice?

Q-268² — February 4, 2014 — — With regard to the operations of the Halifax Port Authority (the Authority): (a) what was the total loss incurred by the Authority as a result of the bankruptcy of American Feeder Line; (b) what were the total bad debts of the Authority in each of the last five years; (c) what are the costs and revenues respecting the Authority’s management of the Halifax Seaport Farmers Market; (d) what are the costs and revenues with respect to the Nova Scotia College of Art & Design lease with the Authority; (e) what are the aged account receivables of the Authority for each of the last five years; (f) what charities and community programs has the Authority contributed to and in what amount in each of the last fiveyears; (g) what travel expenses were incurred by each member of the board of the Authority and the top five staff of the Authority in each of the last five years, and in each case what destinations were involved in the travel; (h) for the last five years, how many metric tonnes of goods moved between the mid-west of the United States of America and (i) China, (ii) India, (iii) Vietnam via the Port of Halifax; (i) what offices or operations does the Authority maintain outside of Halifax and what is the total cost per year of maintaining these offices; (j) what dollar amount is paid to directors of the Authority for meetings and other duties; (k) what is the total dollar amount paid to all directors of the Authority for each of the last five years; (l) what specific club memberships and professional fees are paid for each staff member and member of the Authority board; (m) are barrister society fees currently paid for the Authority president, or have they been in the past, and how much was this fee for each of the last five years; (n) what was the revenue collected by the Authority for each of the last five years, broken down as follows: income related to the two container terminals and their shipping line customers, leases, wharfage and harbour dues; (o) what was the number of Authority employees on August 1 for each of the last five years; and (p) what was the number of Authority contract employees on August 1 for each of the last five years?

Q-269² — February 4, 2014 — — With regard to government funding for the company PurGenesis: (a) has PurGenesis given the government a financial report for fiscal years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 or any other fiscal year; (b) has PurGenesis given the government an activity report for fiscal years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 or any other fiscal year; (c) has the government funded any other activities by PurGenesis since May 2, 2011; (d) between 2008 and the present, has the government received any market research from PurGenesis; (e) between 2008 and the present, has PurGenesis given the government any technological opinions to validate product feasibility; (f) between 2008 and the present, has PurGenesis given the government any expert opinions to validate patentable products; and (g) between 2008 and the present, has PurGenesis given the government any expert recommendations, studies or analyses?

Q-270² — February 4, 2014 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Public Works and Government Services Canada and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what is the annual funding given to administer (i) Cod Sentinel Survey, (ii) the Fisheries Science Collaborative Program, (iii) Post-Season Snow Crab Pot Surveys, (iv) Aquaculture Impact on Lobsters and Crab in Connaigre Bay, (v) Eastport Lobster Marine Protected Area; and (b) how many years have these agreements been in place?

Q-271² — February 4, 2014 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW), how much funding does the FFAW receive annually for the Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures Program?

Q-272² — February 4, 2014 — — With regard to Section 602.08 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Portable Electronic Devices): (a) what reports exist that justify the prohibition of portable electronic devices (cell phones) operated on board aircraft; (b) what reports exist that provide evidence of interference to aircraft systems caused by portable electronic devices (cell phones) operated on board aircraft; (c) what instances exist of interference from portable electronic devices (cell phones) that impaired the functioning of the aircraft's systems or equipment; (d) what instances exist where the prohibition of portable electronic devices (cell phones) has led to (i) passenger incidents that required crew members to terminate the use of portable electronic devices (cell phones), (ii) passengers being deplaned before take-off, (iii) incidents of the implementation of this regulation that resulted in a report; (e) has there been a more recent assessment of the dangers of interference to aircraft systems caused by portable electronic devices since the Radio and Technical Commission for Aeronautics completed a study of interference problems in 1998 and if so, what are they; (f) what is the risk-assessed likelihood that a portable electronic device (cell phone) will cause interference with the regular operations of aircraft; (g) is the government planning an update to this regulation; and (h) what is the policy of the government with regard to implementing airworthiness standards for the manufacturers of portable electronic devices (cell phones) that would allow the use of such devices on board aircraft?

Q-273² — February 4, 2014 — — With regard to Canada Post: (a) what did the corporation spend on legal fees for each of calendar years 2000 through 2012, broken down as an itemized list of legal invoices including (i) the dollar amounts, (ii) the name of law firm or receiving entity, (iii) the date of payment or expense incurred, (iv) the type of expense or service performed; and (b) what is the current state of payout for past pay disparities as ordered by the Supreme Court of Canada in its oral decision in 2011, detailed by (i) number of past recipients of such payments, (ii) payout dates, (iii) total amount of payments, (iv) amount of interest included in past payments, (v) number of planned or outstanding recipients, (vi) planned payout dates, (vii) total amount of outstanding payments, (viii) amount of interest included in the payment total?

Q-274² — February 4, 2014 — — With regard to the Toronto Island Airport (Billy Bishop Toronto Centre Airport): (a) who has ownership of the lakebed surrounding the airport premises and how would those property rights be affected by a potential expansion of the runways and taxi areas; (b) what is the environmental impact of the airport’s operations in terms of (i) air pollutant emissions and impact on air quality, (ii) water pollutants and impact on general water quality, drinking water supply quality and aquatic life, (iii) airborne dust particles and particle matter and related fallout; (c) what are current and planned regulatory requirements for Runway End Safety Areas at the airport, specifically with regard to the ongoing Transport Canada review of federal rules and outstanding recommendations from the Transportation Safety Board and the International Civil Aviation Organization and the expected impact on the current and future runway length; (d) what are the processes and responsibilities with regard to the Marine Exclusion Zone markers (buoys), specifically the governing rules and regulations, and determination of the physical location, placement and maintenance of the markers at the airport; and (e) what is the expected impact on existing or additional runway approaches or flight paths with regard to the potential opening of the airport to jet aircraft models?

Q-275² — February 4, 2014 — — With regard to federal taxes, revenues, expenses and transfers in the calendar year 2012 for the cities of Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary and Edmonton: (a) which taxes, fees and other revenue types did the federal government collect or had other entities collect on its behalf, broken down by (i) type, (ii) dollar amount, (ii) originator (including, but not limited to, individual citizens, companies, etc.), (iv) collecting or facilitating entity or level of government, for each of the aforementioned cities; and (b) which types of investments, payouts, transfers and other outgoing payments did the federal government make to each of the aforementioned cities broken down by (i) type, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) facilitating entity or level of government, (iv) frequency of transaction (one-time, recurring), (v) receiving entity of level of government, (vi) facilitating entity or level of government?


² Response requested within 45 days