Wednesday, October 23, 2013 (No. 6)

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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.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-12 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to aboriginal justice, broken down by year from 2006 to the present: (a) how much money was dedicated to the Aboriginal Justice Strategy (AJS); (b) how much money was devoted to other aboriginal justice programs; (c) with respect to (a) and (b), by program, how much money was spent; (d) by whom were monies in (a) and (b) spent, on what dates, and for what purpose; (e) broken down by province and territory, on what dates were provinces and territories consulted with respect to funding of the AJS for the upcoming year; (f) broken down by province and territory, on what dates were the provinces and territories consulted with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (g) broken down by province and territory, how much did each request of the government with respect to the AJS; (h) broken down by province and territory, with which First Nations did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (i) with which First Nations groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (j) with which other stakeholders did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (k) which stakeholders were informed of budget decisions relative to the AJS, by what means and on what dates; (l) broken down by province and territory, how much did each request of the government with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (m) broken down by province and territory, with which First Nations did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (n) with which First Nations groups and NGOs did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (o) with which other stakeholders did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (p) how does the government determine stakeholders regarding aboriginal justice concerns; (q) by whom, with what criteria, and when was the AJS budget determined; (r) in what ways, by whom, and when is AJS evaluated; (s) in which Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers' meetings was the AJS raised; (t) what commitments were made by the government; (u) were those commitments met; (v) which stakeholders were informed of budget decisions relative to other aboriginal justice programs, by what means and on what dates; (w) by whom, with what criteria, and when were these budgets determined; (x) in what ways, by whom, and when are these programs evaluated; (y) in which Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers' meetings were these programs raised; (z) what commitments were made by the government; (aa) were those commitments met; (bb) in what ways do these programs work to implement the Gladue principles; (cc) in what other ways are the Gladue principles being implemented; (dd) by what means, how often, with which criteria, and by whom does the government evaluate its implementation of the Gladue principles; (ee) what programs and strategies are in place to ensure both respect for and compliance with the Gladue principles; (ff) how many Gladue courts operate in Canada; (gg) in what ways is the government engaged with Gladue courts; (hh) in what ways does the government support Gladue courts; (ii) in what ways does the government ensure training for judges on the Gladue principles; (jj) in what ways does the government ensure training for prosecutors on the Gladue principles; (kk) in what ways does the government ensure the consideration of Gladue principles in its filings and submissions before the courts; (ll) in what ways is the government addressing the over-representation of aboriginals in prisons; (mm) what are the principles of the government’s aboriginal justice approach; (nn) how does the government evaluate whether its approach to aboriginal justice is working; (oo) by what specific standards, by whom and how often do such evaluations occur; (pp) in what ways does the government undertake predictions or forecasts with respect to the incarceration of aboriginal offenders; (qq) how are these forecasts taken into account in criminal justice policy development; (rr) in what ways are proposed justice laws evaluated for their impact on aboriginal persons; (ss) in what ways is the government incorporating aboriginal justice into its overall justice strategy; (tt) what policies exist to ensure aboriginal justice concerns are taken into account at every stage of policy and legislative development; (uu) who is responsible for keeping statistics on aboriginal justice; (vv) with respect to (uu), what statistics are available and from which departments; and (ww) with respect to (vv) what are the figures for each of the last three years?

Q-22 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’s statement in the House of Commons on March 14, 2012, that “we have issued an operational bulletin to our visa officers and CBSA (Canada Border Service Agency) agents indicating that the African National Congress (ANC) is an organization that has undergone substantial change and, therefore, membership in it should no longer be considered grounds for inadmissibility”: (a) when was this directive issued, (i) was this directive issued in written form, (ii) if so, is it publically available and where can it be accessed, (iii) on what date was it posted to the website of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, (iv) why, as of June 4, 2013, is it unavailable on the website of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, (v) what are the details of the directive, (vi) how was the directive communicated to CBSA agents, (vii) how was the directive communicated to Citizenship and Immigration Canada personnel in Canada, (viii) how was the directive communicated to Embassy and Consulate personnel abroad, (ix) with respect to (vii) and (viii), on what dates did said communication occur, (x) on what date did the directive become effective; (b) does the exemption to inadmissibility created by this directive apply only to ANC members or does it apply to members of any organization that has undergone a fundamental change, (i) if the former, does it apply to both current and former ANC members regardless of the time period during which they were associated with the organization, (ii) if the latter, are there specific guidelines regarding the determination of whether an organization has undergone a fundamental change, (iii) if so, are these guidelines publically available and where can they be accessed, (iv) if not, how is this determination made, (v) what organizations are currently considered to have undergone fundamental change; (c) under what sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) have ANC members been found inadmissible, (i) broken down by year and section, how many ANC members have been found inadmissible, (ii) how long did the determination of inadmissibly take in each case; (d) does this directive necessarily exempt the ANC from inadmissibility pursuant to section 34 of the IRPA; (e) does this directive necessarily exempt the ANC from inadmissibility pursuant to section 37 of the IRPA; (f) does the new directive apply to any organization that has undergone a fundamental change; (g) what provisions of IRPA are specifically targeted by this new directive to ensure that inadmissibility determinations do not solely rest on ANC membership; (h) are specific determinations regarding the admissibility to Canada of current and former ANC members based on individual answers provided to questions on visa application forms; (i) upon a finding that a current or former ANC member is not admissible to Canada, can this determination be appealed and, if so, on what grounds; (j) is it necessary that an applicant have engaged in criminal activity related to his current or former membership in the ANC in order to be denied admissibility based on his membership in this organization, (i) if so, is it necessary that the applicant have a criminal record, (ii) is it necessary that the conduct at issue be currently criminalized in Canada in order to result in inadmissibility pursuant to section 37 of the IRPA; (k) were there any exemptions to the inadmissibility of a current or former ANC member prior to the adoption of this new operational directive; (l) have the new directive and any resulting operational guidelines been applied since their adoption to the cases of any current or former ANC members; (m) to whom can an applicant present evidence that a relevant organization has undergone a fundamental change; (n) what standard of evidence is required for showing that an organization has undergone a fundamental change, (i) how are such decisions made, (ii) by whom and applying what criteria; (o) is a finding of inadmissibility in this regard, or a finding as to the applicability of the “fundamental change” exemption, at the complete discretion of the particular border guard who reviews a particular application, (i) is a finding of inadmissibility in this regard reviewable, (ii) if reviewable, to whom is an application for review made and are the relevant procedural guidelines for review specified, (ii) if there are specified guidelines for review, where can they be accessed; (p) has the Minister proposed any further measures to address the problem of the inadmissibility to Canada of current and former ANC members, (ii) if the Minister has directed that new measures be applied in this regard, to whom has the directive been made and where can they be accessed, (iii) if the Minister has not directed that new measures be applied in this regard, what steps are being taken to ensure that current and former members of the ANC are not automatically denied admissibility to Canada on the basis of their association with that organization; (q) on what occasions and through what channels has the government discussed the ANC visa issue with the Government of South Africa; (r) was the Government of South Africa advised of the operational bulletin and if so, on what date; (s) how is the operational bulletin being evaluated for its effectiveness and what steps are in place to ensure it is working; and (t) prior to their recent South Africa trip, were the Governor General, Foreign Affairs Minister, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister informed of the operational bulletin and, if so, on what dates and by whom?

Q-32 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the State Immunity Act (SIA): (a) what is the process by which the Governor in Council sets out the names of foreign states that are believed to support or to have supported terrorism on the list established pursuant to the SIA; (b) what is the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ role in this process; (c) what is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness’ role in this process; (d) do the Ministers engage in regular consultations for the purpose of reviewing and updating the list, (i) how frequently do the Ministers engage in such consultations, (ii) how do the Ministers determine when to consult in this regard, (iii) how do the Ministers determine what states to consider when engaging in such consultations, (iv) on whose initiative are such consultations undertaken, (v) what guidelines control the consultation process, (vi) are consultations conducted privately, (vii) are the minutes of these consultations recorded and, if so, where can they be accessed, (viii) what information is available regarding the substance of these consultations; (e) what foreign states are currently being considered for listing pursuant to the SIA, (i) are the Ministers currently involved in any consultations in this regard, (ii) at what stage do these consultations currently stand, (iii) are there any plans for upcoming consultations in this regard; (f) what steps are being taken to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that any other states not currently listed have been or are engaged in the support of terrorism; (g) what has been the impact thus far of listing states, (i) broken down by state, how many lawsuits of which the government is aware were initiated against these states prior to the listing, (ii) broken down by state, how many lawsuits of which the government is aware are currently pending against listed states, (iii) how much has the government thus far spent in cases in (ii), (iv) who is responsible for defending cases in (ii), (v) what budget exists for defending cases in (ii); (h) on what evidence does the Minister of Foreign Affairs rely in making the determination that reasonable grounds exist to believe that a state is or has been engaged in the support of terrorism, (i) does a determination by the Ministers that a foreign state is or has been engaged in the support of terrorism automatically result in a recommendation by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to list that state pursuant to the SIA, (ii) is it necessary that both Ministers agree in the determination that reasonable grounds exist in order for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to recommend the listing of the state pursuant to the SIA, (iii) what evidentiary rules control the type of evidence that may be considered in making this determination, (iv) can and does the Minister rely on classified information in making this determination, (v) may individuals and groups make submissions in this regard, (vi) how may such submissions be made, (vii) what publically available sources are consulted in the consultation process, (viii) which individuals are involved in the consultation process; (i) does the listing of a state result in that state being subject to the jurisdiction of a Canadian court in an action brought pursuant to the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA) in all instances; (j) in what instances may a listed state enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court in an action brought pursuant to the JVTA; (k) what types of immunity are covered by the SIA, (i) what types of immunity are not covered by the SIA, (ii) can a state that is listed still claim any type of immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court, (iii) what claims in (ii) will the government defend on behalf of a state, (iv) how, by whom, and applying what standards is the determination in (iii) made; (l) with regard to the listed state of Iran, (i) is it the policy of the government that all Iranian-owned property located in Canada is immune from attachment, (ii) what specific Iranian-owned properties located in Canada are immune from attachment, (iii) on what basis are such properties immune from attachment, (iv) by whom, and applying what standard is the determination in (iii) made; (m) with regard to listed and non-listed states, on what basis does the government support diplomatic immunity for states in civil actions, and how is the determination on (l) made, by whom, and with reference to what authorities; (n) with regard to listed states, on what basis do these states benefit from diplomatic immunity, (i) who makes the determination on the part of the government to invoke such immunity, (ii) in what instances, if any, have states requested that such immunity be invoked, (iii) does the government’s obligation to protect diplomatic or consular properties include the obligation to defend a listed state in court, (iv) is it the government’s policy that it is obligated to defend a listed state in court, (v) if so, to what extent and how is this determination made, (vi) in what cases has the government made this argument, (vii) in what cases is the government making this argument, (viii) how much has the government spent so far on cases in (vii); (o) with respect to the listing of Iran, was the decision in part based on evidence that the former Iranian embassy in Ottawa has been used to support terrorism, (i) if so, how was the government aware that the embassy was being used for such purposes and on what dates, (ii) does the use of the property that is located in Canada of a foreign state in support of terrorism exempt that property from the immunity provided by the SIA, (iii) does the use of the property that is located in Canada of a foreign state in support of terrorism exempt that property from all immunity, (iv) what type of immunity can still be claimed by a listed foreign state to protect property that is located in Canada that has been or is being used in support of terrorism, (v) does diplomatic immunity protect embassy property even where the relevant embassy was used or is being used in violation of international law or in support of terrorism; (p) with respect to the listed state of Iran, how much money has been spent defending it in court, (i) what are the anticipated costs of defending the Islamic Republic of Iran in court, (ii) is there a government policy or directive indicating the acceptable costs to be expended in defending the Islamic Republic of Iran in court, (iii) from where does the government obtain the funds necessary to defend the Islamic Republic of Iran in court, (iv) what is the maximum amount of money that the government will spend in defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran in court; (q) with respect to the listed state of Iran, can the property located in Ottawa at which the former embassy of Iran was located be attached in a civil action by victims of Iranian-sanctioned terrorism to enforce a judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, (i) what are the government’s obligations toward the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard, (ii) does the government know this property to be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iii) does the government know this property to have at any time been owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iv) is it necessary that the property be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran for it to receive immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court; (r) can the property located in Ottawa at which the former residence of the Ambassador of Iran to Canada is located be attached in a civil action by victims of Iranian-sanctioned terrorism to enforce a judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, (i) what are the government’s obligations towards the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard, (ii) does the government know this property to be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iii) does the government know this property to have at any time been owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iv) is it necessary that the property be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran for it to receive immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court; (s) can the property located in Toronto at which the former Iranian cultural center is located be attached in an action by victims of Iranian-sanctioned terrorism to enforce a judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, (i) what are the government’s obligations towards the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard, (ii) does the government know this property to be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iii) does the government know this property to have at any time been owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iv) is it necessary that the property be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran for it to receive immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court; (t) by whom, how often, and by what criteria will the SIA’s effectiveness be evaluated and who is responsible for this review; (u) by what means were listed states informed of their listing, (i) on what dates, (ii) by whom, (iii) is there a policy with regard to informing states of their having been listed, (iv) if so, what is it; (v) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts have been made to inform Canadians of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations, (i) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts have been made to inform Canadian companies of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations, (ii) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts will be made to inform Canadians of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations, (iii) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts will be made to inform Canadian companies of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations; and (w) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts were made with respect to changes to state immunity occasioned by the coming into force of the JVTA, (i) in particular, how were judges informed of the changes, (ii) how were states informed of the possibility of a listing pursuant to the JVTA, (iii) were efforts made to reach out to potential claimants affected by changes to the SIA, (iv) if so, what were these efforts, how were they undertaken, by whom, and on what dates?

Q-42 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to international treaties and conventions dealing in whole or in part with human rights and with Canada’s international obligations in this regard: (a) does the government have any formal or informal procedures for regular review of those international human rights treaties that Canada has not yet signed, ratified, or otherwise accepted; (b) does the government have any formal or informal guidelines according to which it determines whether the specific obligations contained in a treaty or other international undertaking conflicts with the Constitution Act, 1867, and if so where can these guidelines be accessed; (c) do the guidelines referred to in (b) specify the standard according to which the government determines if any obligation contained in a treaty or other international undertaking violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867; (d) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD); (e) does the government have any formal or informal guidelines according to which it determines whether the specific obligations contained in a treaty or other international undertaking require implementing legislation in order for Canada to be able to ratify or otherwise accept it, and if so where can these guidelines be accessed; (f) does the government have a position as to whether international agreements that establish a complaints mechanism or communications procedure for enforcement of the rights and obligations contained therein are necessarily unconstitutional; (g) does the government have a policy as to whether Canada will accept such agreements referred to in (f); (h) does the government undergo review of proposed international human rights agreements that would establish such a mechanism or procedure referred to in (f) on a case by case basis, (i) who is involved in this review, (ii) are the provinces and other interested stakeholders consulted in this regard; (i) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to make the relevant declaration under Article 14 of CERD, which would indicate Canada’s acceptance of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s competence to receive individual complaints, (i) has the government or any minister consulted with any individuals or organizations who have expressed any positions with regard to Canada’s failure to make the declaration referred to in subsection (i), (ii) does Canada’s failure to make the necessary declaration referred to in (a) cause it to be derelict with regard to its treaty obligations, pursuant to either CERD or any other international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (iii) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint or communication to any international or intergovernmental organization or international tribunal pertaining to Canada’s obligations under CERD, (iv) has the government received any complaints or communications from any individuals, organizations, or State Parties to CERD regarding its obligations under the CERD, (v) has the government taken any action in response to such complaints referred to in (iv), (vi) does the government have a position as to whether Article 14 of CERD violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, if so, what specific sections does it violate, (vii) has the government engaged in any consultations, either with the provinces or with any other relevant stakeholders, regarding Canada’s failure to sign and accept Article 14 of CERD; (j) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), (i) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Optional Protocol), which establishes a communications procedure for individuals to file a complaint before the ICESCR Committee alleging a violation of the rights or obligations contained in the treaty, (ii) has the government or any minister consulted with any individuals or organizations who have expressed any positions with regard to Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (iii) does Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) cause it to be derelict with regard to its treaty obligations, pursuant to either ICESCR or any other international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (iv) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint or communication to any international or intergovernmental organization or international tribunal pertaining to Canada’s obligations under ICESCR, (v) has the government received any complaints or communications from any individuals, organizations, or State Parties to ICESCR regarding its obligations under ICESCR, (vi) has the government taken any action in response to such complaints referred to in (v), (vii) does the government have a position as to whether the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, if so, what specific sections does it violate, (viii) has the government engaged in any consultations, either with the provinces or with any other relevant stakeholders, regarding Canada’s failure to sign and accept the Optional Protocol referred to in (i); (k) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), (i) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Optional Protocol), which establishes a system of unannounced visits by international and national monitoring bodies to places where persons are being deprived of their liberty, (ii) has the government or any minister consulted with any individuals or organizations who have expressed any positions with regard to Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (iii) does Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) cause it to be derelict with regard to its treaty obligations, pursuant to either CAT or any other international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (iv) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint or communication to any international or intergovernmental organization or international tribunal pertaining to Canada’s obligations under the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (v) has the government received any complaints or communications from any individuals, organizations, or State Parties to CAT regarding its obligations under CAT, (vi) has the government taken any action in response to such complaints referred to in (v), (vii) does the government have a position as to whether the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, if so, what specific sections does it violate, (viii) has the government engaged in any consultations, either with the provinces or with any other relevant stakeholders, regarding Canada’s failure to sign and accept the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (ix) has the government received any requests either from a State Party to CAT or from any international or national monitoring group or other organization to visit a specific location in order to confirm allegations that Canada is derelict with regard to its obligations under CAT or where an individual is alleged to be deprived by Canada of their liberties, and if so how has the government responded, (l) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the Amendment to Article 43(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography, (i) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure (Third Optional Protocol), which establishes a complaints procedure by which individuals can allege a State Party’s violation of its obligations set out in the conventions or optional protocols referred to in (i), (ii) has the government or any minister consulted with any individuals or organizations who have expressed any positions with regard to Canada’s failure to sign the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (iii) does Canada’s failure to sign the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i) cause it to be derelict with regard to its treaty obligations, pursuant to either ICESCR or any other international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (iv) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint or communication to any international or intergovernmental organization or international tribunal pertaining to Canada’s obligations under the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (v) has the government received any complaints or communications from any individuals, organizations, or State Parties to any of the international agreements referred to in (i) regarding its obligations under any of those agreements, (vi) has the government taken any action in response to such complaints referred to in (v), (vii) does the government have a position as to whether the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i) violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, if so, what specific sections does it violate, (viii) has the government engaged in any consultations, either with the provinces or with any other relevant stakeholders, regarding Canada’s failure to sign and accept the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i); (m) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICPRMW), (i) does Canada’s failure to sign the ICPRMW referred to in (e) cause it to be derelict with regard to its obligations pursuant to any international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (ii) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint pertaining to Canada’s obligations towards migrant workers and temporary foreign workers under international law, (iii) is it the position of the government that temporary foreign workers in Canada who believe there rights pursuant to either domestic or international law have been violated should be allowed to remain in Canada pending the outcome of judicial proceedings in this regard, (iv) is there any formal policy in place by which temporary foreign workers in Canada can ensure that they are not deported pending the outcome of judicial proceedings relating to an alleged violation of their rights under international law, (v) does Canada have an obligation under international law to ensure that temporary foreign workers have access to Canadian courts to adjudicate violations of their rights under domestic or international law, (vi) is there any legal or constitutional barrier to Canada becoming a State Party to the ICPRMW referred to in (e); and (n) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), (i) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol to the CRPD, (ii) has the government or any minister consulted with any individuals or organizations who have expressed any positions with regard to Canada’s failure to sign the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (iii) does Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) cause it to be derelict with regard to its treaty obligations, pursuant to either CRPD or any other international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (iv) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint or communication to any international or intergovernmental organization or international tribunal pertaining to Canada’s obligations under the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (v) has the government received any complaints or communications from any individuals, organizations, or State Parties to the international agreement referred to in (n) regarding its obligations under any of those agreements, (vi) has the government taken any action in response to such complaints referred to in (v), (vii) does the government have a position as to whether the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, if so, what specific sections does it violate, (viii) has the government engaged in any consultations – either with the provinces or with any other relevant stakeholders – regarding Canada’s failure to sign and accept the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i)?

Q-52 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to residency questionnaires for citizenship applications: (a) what is the total number of questionnaires sent out by Citizenship and Immigration Canada for each of the last five years; (b) what is the total number of questionnaires sent to citizenship applicants living in the riding of Ottawa Centre for each of the last five years; (c) what is the total number of questionnaires sent out by province for each of the last five years; (d) if the use of questionnaires has increased, what is the rationale; and (e) what are the names of all documents describing the criteria of assessment used to determine whether a residency questionnaire will be administered to an applicant?

Q-62 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to the property owned by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) at 250 Lanark Avenue in Ottawa: (a) is the property designated as surplus; (b) if so, is the property designated as surplus strategic or surplus routine; (c) does PWGSC intend to dispose of the property; (d) if so, what is the planned timeframe for the disposal of the property; (e) how is the green space at the property currently being used; (f) what are the reasons for restricting public access to the green space at the property?

Q-72 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — With regard to the Government-wide Chart of Accounts: (a) how does the Receiver General for Canada fulfill his official languages obligations; (b) how does the Treasury Board Secretariat fulfill its official languages obligations; (c) what positive measures have been taken as regards official languages; (d) are official languages integrated into the Chart and if so, how, or if not, why not; (e) how does the Chart allow for data on financial transactions to be identified, collected and reported in such a way as to fulfill the government’s official languages obligations; and (f) what are the program codes regarding official languages, and for which institutions are they used?

Q-82 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — With regard to the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013–2018: (a) has the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat issued a directive or other instruction to all federal institutions participating in the implementation of the Roadmap to ensure that they consult the official language minority communities when establishing objectives, parameters, targets and performance indicators for their programs under the Roadmap; (b) how will Canadian Heritage ensure that the institutions participating in the implementation of the Roadmap effectively consult the official language minority communities in a timely manner to determine the program objectives, parameters, targets and performance indicators that must be identified before presenting an overview memorandum to Treasury Board; (c) among the federal institutions participating in the implementation of the Roadmap, are there any that have already consulted the communities with regard to program objectives, parameters, targets and performance indicators and, if so, which community groups and organizations were consulted; and (d) what deadline was given to the federal institutions for consulting the communities and for presenting their memorandum to Heritage Canada?

Q-92 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to the importation of consumer electronic products and devices, broken down by fiscal year since 2006-2007: (a) what is the total value of consumer electronic devices and other products imported into Canada under tariff codes (i) 8519.81.29, (ii) 8521.90.90, (iii) 9948.00.00; and (b) how much was paid in tariffs for the importation into Canada of consumer electronic devices and other products under tariff codes (i) 8519.81.29, (ii) 8521.90.90, (iii) 9948.00.00?

Q-102 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Dubé (Chambly—Borduas) — With regard to the funds allocated by the government for the Toronto 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games, and the 2012-2016 Host Program Contribution Agreement between Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) and the Organizing Committee of the Toronto 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games: (a) how much has been allocated to all the sports venues, including but not limited to the CIBC Athletes’ Village, the CIBC Pan Am and Parapan Am Games Athletics Centre and Field House, the Markham Pan Am and Parapan Am Centre, the Welland Flatwater Centre, the Caledon Equestrian Park, and the Hamilton Soccer Stadium; (b) what are the specific details of the amounts allocated to construct new sports infrastructures and those allocated to renovate existing sports infrastructures; (c) for each of the capital projects (especially the sites for test events, training, competitions and support services), what are the specifics of all the interim quarterly activity/results reports describing the status of each project as stipulated in Annex E, Interim and Final Results Reporting Requirements, of the 2012-2016 Hosting Program Contribution Agreement; and (d) the amount allocated to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Contribution Agreement related to official languages and related services provided by the government for the Games?

Q-112 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With regard to the Translation Bureau: (a) how many words were translated from French to English and from English to French for the years (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012, (v) 2013; and (b) what was the Bureau’s baseline budget, how many permanent, term and contract employees did it have, and what amount did the various federal institutions allocate for translation in the years (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012, (v) 2013?

Q-122 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — Regarding the measures "totaling two billion dollars" contained in the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, tabled by the government in November 2010: (a) over what time frame is this money to be spent; and (b) how much of the $2 billion has already been spent?

Q-132 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what are the contents of all news releases, media advisories or any form of communication, national, regional or "proactive local outreach” in scope, issued by the Department between November 6 and November 15, 2012?

Q-142 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): (a) what is the position of the government on the matter of overturning decisions of the CRTC; (b) what criteria or policies are used by the Cabinet to overturn decisions of the CRTC; (c) how many times since 2006 has the Cabinet overturned decisions of the CRTC and what were those decisions; and (d) who are the current members of the CRTC and what are each member’s date of appointment or reappointment?

Q-152 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to the Standards Council of Canada (SCC): (a) does the SCC consider the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) a commercial entity or a regulatory entity; (b) does the SCC believe that CSA owns any portion of Canadian law; (c) does the SCC believe that the CSA is afforded an exemption, or exemptions, to Canadian law; (d) does the SCC believe that the CSA has the right to restrict public access to Canadian law; (e) what is the average annual value transferred from CSA to provincial governments in payment for those contributions; (f) what percentage of CSA members’ payments for Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) influence are diverted to non-CEC activities; (g) does the SCC believe that the CSA practice of trading influence over, or control of, legislative processes in exchange for money or other value consideration is a violation of law; (h) does the SCC believe that the CSA practice of leveraging regulatory authority for commercial advantage is an abuse of regulatory authority; (i) what is the increase in annual revenue experienced by CSA, expressed both in percent and in Canadian dollars, resulting from this decision to tighten the Code development cycle by 25 percent; (j) what is the average annual value of royalty payments made to CSA by each of the government of British Columbia and the government of Ontario in exchange for the right to print the statutes that CSA claims to own and that these jurisdictions have passed into law; (k) does CSA provide access to Canadian law at different costs to different customers according to the values that these customers have at various times paid to CSA; (l) does the SCC assure Parliament that CSA does not leverage any value in any form, including contributions of content and labour, from activities related to the CEC for any of its commercial developments including the CSA Handbook; and (m) does the SCC believe that articles and documentation that are developed as part of a legislative process and that are to constitute part of law in any jurisdiction of Canada may not be concealed from the public for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain, nor may they be leveraged preferentially, by time or by access or by other advantage, by any entity for purposes external to the legislated passage of those articles or documentation?

Q-162 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to the government's September 2007 announcement of a “one-time, tax-free, ex gratia payment of $20,000 related to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick during the summers of 1966 and 1967” : (a) how much money was budgeted for these payments; (b) how many payments were issued; (c) how much of the money budgeted was not paid out in ex gratia payments; and (d) what was done with the money that was not paid out?

Q-172 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to spending in the federal riding of Halifax West, how much money was spent between 2007 and 2012: (a) through the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund; (b) through the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund; (c) through the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund; (d) through the Infrastructure Canada program; and (e) how much money has the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency directed to businesses and projects in the federal riding of Halifax West between 2007 and 2012?

Q-182 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Mulcair (Outremont) — With regard to government spending in the constituency of Outremont, what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the money was received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program from which the funding came, (iv) the ministry responsible, (v) the designated recipient?

Q-192 — October 16, 2013 — Ms. Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier) — With regard to the Translation Bureau: (a) what was the total number of translator, interpreter and editor positions at the Bureau, per year, since 2005-2006; (b) what is the Bureau's total number of client institutions; (c) what was the total number of client institutions, per year, since 2005-2006; and (d) what is the total amount invoiced to these institutions for (i) translation or editing services, (ii) interpretation services?

Q-202 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With regard to the horse slaughter industry in Canada: (a) what was the reason for the temporary halt, initiated by European Union (EU) officials, to horse meat imports from Canada on October 12, 2012; (b) has Canada participated in talks with EU officials regarding the safety of horse meat from Canada since that time, (i) if so, what topics were discussed, (ii) what conclusions were reached; (c) what restrictions effective in 2013 will be imposed upon the Canadian horse meat industry by the EU, (i) what is the anticipated impact of these restrictions on the frequency and type of drug residue testing on horse meat in Canada as well as on the data required on Equine Information Documents (EIDs), (ii) will the restrictions on prohibited/non-permitted drugs be further tightened; (d) is there any oversight by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on transport drivers and horse meat dealers listed on EIDs as current owners to check for a history of violations of the United States Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Transport, or CFIA transport regulations, (i) does the CFIA enhance its scrutiny of such violators or conduct follow-up investigations on those who have been flagged for violations, (ii) is this information shared with any other inter-connected government agency either in Canada or in the United States; (e) how often do CFIA inspectors do a visual inspection of the transports that arrive at the slaughter plants to ensure that the horses have been transported safely; (f) how many transport violations concerning horse slaughter transportation have been issued to transport drivers within the last five years, (i) how many warnings of violations have been issued, (ii) if the warnings have been ignored, how does the CFIA restrict or prohibit those transport drivers from conducting business in Canada; (g) how often does the CFIA conduct inspections of feedlots and how many warnings or violations were imposed in the last five years because of these inspections; (h) in the last five years, how many times has the CFIA conducted audits of processes and procedures regarding the export shipments of live horses to foreign countries, (i) how many audit reports were prepared, (ii) how many warnings were issued to shippers; (i) how does the CFIA ensure that e-coli or the potential for e-coli is properly erased from horses and horse meat during and after the slaughter process; (j) how often are in-house video cameras scrutinized in plants and does the CFIA keep these videos to scrutinize at a later date, and how does the CFIA address inappropriate behaviour by slaughter plant personnel that may be uncovered in video recordings; (k) after conditions at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation were revealed in 2011, were structural changes instituted at that slaughter facility and, if so, which ones, and were changes concerning the safe use of a rifle rather than captive bolt gun instituted and, if so, did the CFIA see a reduction in the number of horses regaining consciousness after switching from captive bolt gun to rifle; (l) what accountability measures are taken towards recorded owners of horses whose carcasses were condemned for reasons of disease, malnourishment or other abuse; (m) are the carcasses of horses that test positive for prohibited drugs used for rendering, and if not, how does the CFIA oversee the safe disposal of contaminated carcasses and ensure that condemned carcasses are not combined in any way with normal rendering; (n) how often does the CFIA inspect slaughter house feedlots and out buildings for dead or downer horses, (i) are there any reports kept by plant personnel regarding dead or downer horses, (ii) if so, does the CFIA inspect these reports at any time, (iii) how many dead or downer horses have been involved since January 1, 2010, and what were the circumstances surrounding these cases; (o) what protocols are in place to ensure that equine blood and other body fluids are being properly diverted from municipal town water systems; (p) does the CFIA conduct audits or oversee EIDs when obvious erroneous information is listed by the recorded owner and is the slaughter plant required to flag these EIDs for scrutiny by the CFIA when there are obvious or deliberate errors or omissions; (q) what do slaughterhouses do with registration papers that may accompany thoroughbreds, standardbreds, quarter horses or other breeds to slaughter facilities; (r) does the CFIA compile statistics on breeds that are most likely to have been administered prohibited drugs; (s) what are the “animal well-being program” and “program to monitor animal slaughter” mentioned in the response to written question Q-714 on September 17, 2012, and what results have been seen from the use of these programs; (t) are horse slaughter facilities checking with ID scanners for microchips, (i) if not, does the CFIA plan to implement a microchip ID program and if so, when is the deadline for its implementation; (u) has a database been developed for Equine Information Documents and who is responsible for oversight and maintenance of the database; and (v) how many horse fatalities and serious injuries have occurred during loading or air transport of slaughter horses to Japan and any other countries, between January 1, 2008, and April 1, 2013, (i) what reasons were recorded for the fatalities or injuries, (ii) how was each case resolved?

Q-212 — October 16, 2013 — Ms. Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles) — With regard to the Indirect Costs Program: (a) what percentage of indirect costs were covered by the program for each fiscal year since 2005; and (b) in the case of McGill University and l'Université Laval, what percentage of indirect costs were covered by the program for each fiscal year since 2005?

Q-222 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — With regard to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, on an annual basis: (a) what human and financial resources have been allocated to the Convention’s implementation since its ratification, for fiscal years (i) 2013-2014, (ii) 2014-2015; (b) what projects, groups and associations have received funding since its ratification; (c) has the Department of Canadian Heritage reviewed its policies to ensure they comply with the Convention; (d) what action does the government intend to take in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 to implement the Convention; (e) how many meetings on the Convention have the government and the provinces held since its ratification; (f) how many UNESCO meetings on the Convention have Canadian delegates attended; (g) with regard to the Canada-Europe free-trade agreement, how many meetings between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development have been held to date?

Q-232 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With regard to Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans who have exhausted all their redress options at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) and pursue their right to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review of the decision: (a) how many veterans pursued their right to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; (b) what is the total amount of money spent by all departments and agencies, including all costs associated with the work of the Department of Justice, for judicial reviews of VRAB decisions from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; (c) what is the average cost to the Crown and government for a judicial review case, including a breakdown of average costs including salaries, court transcription services, courier fees, witnesses, and other items; (d) what was the cost for each judicial review from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; and (e) what is the average amount of time it takes for a judicial review decision from start to finish?

Q-242 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With regard to Correctional Service of Canada (CSC): (a) how many adults serving custody sentences in the federal correctional system previously served in the Canadian Forces (CF) and RCMP from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (b) how many of these adults specified above served their custody sentence in (i) federal minimum security prisons, (ii) federal medium security prisons, (iii) federal maximum security prisons; (c) how many offenders on conditional release previously served in the Canadian Forces and RCMP from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (d) what is a breakdown on the types of offences committed by adults with previous service in the CF and RCMP for those serving custody sentences in federal correctional facilities and offenders on conditional release from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (e) has CSC determined a re-conviction rate for adults who previously served in the CF or RCMP from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (f) what is a breakdown of the types of rehabilitative needs adults who previously served in the CF and RCMP accessed while serving their custody sentence or conditional release (including psychological, social, or occupational training opportunities) from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; and (g) how many adults serving their custody sentence or conditional release with prior CF or RCMP service were treated for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder or Operational Stress Injuries from 2001 to 2013 inclusive?

Q-252 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — With regard to the Department of National Defence: between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012, how many investigations were initiated by the National Investigation Service (NIS), which the Office of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) or the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff (VCDS) ordered, directed, requested, enjoined, required, instructed, commanded charged, told or requisitioned the Provost Marshal or the Commanding Officer of the NIS to (i) conduct such an investigation and (ii) to report back or keep the Office of the CDS or the VCDS generally appraised of the conduct or outcome of the said investigation, and for each investigation, what was the date the NIS investigation was initiated, the rank of the Canadian Forces member being investigated, the general nature of the investigation and the date upon which the NIS investigation was concluded?

Q-262 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — With regard to Canadian Forces (CF) health issues: (a) how many CF members reported suffering from symptoms of Lyme disease for each of 2006-2012 inclusive; and (b) for each reported case, what is (i) the date of the suspected occurrence, (ii) the location of each occurrence, (iii) the rank of the injured CF member, (iv) whether the member was treated and returned to full duty?

Q-272 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — What is the total amount of government funding, allocated within the constituency of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel in the fiscal year 2009-2010, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-282 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — What is the total amount of government funding, allocated within the constituency of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel in the fiscal year 2010-2011, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-292 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to the 267,000 cubic meters of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes that are stored above ground in concrete containers at the Chalk River Laboratories: (a) what is the long-term plan for the containment and safe storage of these wastes; (b) how has the safety of these containers been demonstrated and what is their design life; (c) how has their long term performance been (i) evaluated, (ii) verified; (d) is there an update on the proposed deep geological repository at the Chalk River property and what is (i) the project description, (ii) the project scope; (e) how much will the deep geological repository cost; (f) how has the long term performance been evaluated for the proposed deep geological repository; (g) has a post-closure safety assessment been done; (h) what has been the process for public participation in this project’s development to date; (i) what are the future plans for public participation; and (j) what is the peer review process for this proposed deep geological repository?

Q-302 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to the 23,000 liters of highly enriched uranium (HEU) waste that will be transported from Chalk River to the United States: (a) will the government subject this plan to outside scrutiny to discuss the environmental and safety concerns; (b) how much highly enriched uranium waste is currently being stored at Chalk River; (c) how has the safety of the HEU waste been evaluated, including current and proposed waste management approaches; (d) what are the containers and transportation aspects; and (e) what is the government’s plan for the remainder of this HEU and the waste in the future?

Q-312 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to the government’s pledge to end the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to produce medical isotopes by 2016: (a) what is the progress of producing medical isotopes without HEU; (b) what is the cost and plan for decommissioning the National Research University reactor at Chalk River and what is the management plan for decommissioning wastes; (c) how much money will the government save through the privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL); (d) does the government have a plan if it does not meet its 2016 pledge to stop using HEU to produce medical isotopes; (e) how will the government handle cost runs related to the short, medium and long term management of nuclear wastes?

Q-322 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to all ministerial visits to British Columbia, from September 1, 2013 to October 16, 2013, that involved discussions or announcements related to energy: (a) what was the total cost of these visits; (b) what were the costs of these visits, broken down by (i) minister, (ii) event, (iii) travel cost per person, (iv) travel cost per event, (v) advertising or promotional cost per event; (c) what is the list of events; and (d) who travelled for these events?

Q-332 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt) — With regard to ministerial business, including that of the Prime Minister, since May 2, 2011: (a) how many invitations to speak at, appear at, or attend a function has each minister or the Prime Minister, or their ministerial or departmental staff, accepted or initiated; (b) how many requests to speak at, appear at, or attend a function has each minister or the Prime Minister, or their ministerial or departmental staff, made; (c) what were the details of each such invitation or request, including the date, location, and nature of the function; (d) what were the costs of transportation, accommodation, meals, and security related to the travel of the minister or Prime Minister to and from each such function; (e) what were the costs of transportation, accommodation, and meals incurred by the minister's or Prime Minister's exempt staff members in relation to each such function; and (f) what are the file numbers of any files generated in respect of each such function?

Q-342 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to Industry Canada's "More Choices" campaign, relating to the government’s auction of the 700Mhz spectrum, what was the total spending by the government (a) on print advertising to promote this campaign; (b) on television advertising to promote this campaign; (c) on radio advertising to promote this campaign; (d) on online or web advertising to promote this campaign; and (e) to design the www.canada.ca/morechoices website?

Q-352 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to government‘s funding for tourism, and the return on investment which this funding produces, what is the estimated economic multiplier for spending by (a) the Canadian Tourism Commission; and (b) other departments on tourism-related projects, in terms of (i) government revenues, (ii) Gross Domestic Product?

Q-362 — October 16, 2013 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to the closure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) library in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador (N.L.): (a) what are the anticipated costs, both (i) broken down by individual expense, (ii) in total, of closing the library; (b) does the space that housed the library belong to the government, (i) if so, what are the plans for the space, (ii) if not, how long does the government plan to continue to rent the space and for what purpose; (c) how many total items were housed in the library, and of these (i) how many are digitized, (ii) how many are not digitized, (iii) how many will be transferred to the DFO library in Nova Scotia, (iv) how many will be given away, (v) how many are going to be destroyed; (d) what criteria were used in selecting which DFO libraries to close; (e) was there a consultation period preceding the decision to close, and if so, what were the results of the consultation; (f) how many people were employed at the library in each calendar year from fiscal year 2005 until the present, broken down by (i) part-time workers, (ii) full-time workers, (iii) contract workers; (g) how many jobs will be lost as a result of the library closure; (h) will employees be given the option to relocate to the Nova Scotia library; (i) what is the plan to ensure that all resources, physical and digital, remain available to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, (i) how much does the government expect this process to cost, (ii) will any of these costs be downloaded to the library user, (iii) how will library users return physical items, (iv) who will pay for the return of items mentioned in sub-question (iii), (v) what is the expected individual cost per each physical item borrowed by people located in N.L., (vi) how is the individual cost calculated; (j) what is the plan to digitize items in cases of copyright conflict, and how much does the government expect this plan to cost; (k) what is the anticipated cost, both (i) broken down by individual expense, (ii) in total, to maintain the online portal “WAVES” system annually; (l) how many items are included in DFO’s collection of “grey material”, (i) how many of these will be digitized, (ii) what will happen to the balance of these materials; (m) what is the average elapsed time between the moment a request to make departmental publications available on WAVES is received, and the moment when the departmental publication is received; and (n) what is the anticipated time it will take for a physical item to be received in N.L. after being requested?

Q-372 — October 16, 2013 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to the $65 million dollars provided to Veterans Affairs Canada’s funeral and burial program, managed by The Last Post Fund, over two years as indicated on page 254 of Budget 2013: (a) why did the government choose to provide $63 million in fiscal year 2013-2014 and only $2 million in fiscal year 2014-2015; (b) what happens to the balance of the $65 million if The Last Post Fund fails to spend the allotment corresponding to each fiscal year; (c) which organizations or stakeholders were consulted with regard to this specific funding measure; (d) how much was this program allotted in each year since 2005; (e) how much did this program spend in each year since 2005; and (f) how much does the government expect to spend in each of fiscal years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015?

Q-382 — October 16, 2013 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to changes in employment insurance (EI), in each province and economic region, broken down by age (18-24, 25-54, 55 and over), and for the time period between January and June, broken down by month and totaled for each year since 2004: (a) how many unemployed Canadians (i) applied for EI, (ii) received EI, (iii) how many applicants were rejected; (b) what was the cost to process these applications; (c) what were the total costs of these benefits; (d) how many in receipt of EI benefits in 2013 have previously received EI (i) one time, (ii) two times, (iii) three times or more; (e) how many claimants with three or more claims totaling more than sixty weeks in the past five years have had to accept a job that paid thirty percent less than their last job; (f) how many claimants worked while on EI; (g) how many total applicants have dependents, and how many of these applicants were rejected; (h) of the three new classes created, how many applicants fall under (i) long tenured workers, (ii) frequent claimants, (iii) occasional claimants; and (i) how many applicants live (i) in rural areas, (ii) in urban areas?

Q-392 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to the so-called “carbon bubble”, or the inflation of hydrocarbon and oil and gas sector company stock valuation beyond their utilisable assets, what modeling, planning, estimates or mitigation strategies have been carried out since 2008 on this investment bubble or its potential impacts on the Canadian economy by (i) the Department of Finance, (ii) Industry Canada, (iii) Natural Resources Canada, (iv) any other government department or agency?

Q-402 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to adaptation to climate change and future impacts of climate change on department or agency operations: (a) what planning has been done since October 14, 2008 by (i) the Department of National Defence, (ii) Health Canada, (iii) Transport Canada, (iv) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, (v) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, (vi) Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (vii) Canada Revenue Agency, (viii) Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, (ix) Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, (x) Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (xi) Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, (xii) Industry Canada, (xiii) Foreign Affairs, (xiv) Infrastructure Canada, (xv) International Joint Commission, (xvi) National Capital Commission, (xvii) Parks Canada, (xviii) Public Health Agency of Canada, (xix) Fisheries and Oceans Canada, (xx) Natural Resources Canada, (xxi) Environment Canada, (xxii) Emergency Preparedness Canada; and (b) since October 14, 2008 what climate change economic impact assumptions have been made or budgetary estimates been done for the departments and agencies listed in (a)(i) through (xxii)?

Q-412 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to government funding distributed in the constituency of Thunder Bay—Superior North from the 2011-2012 fiscal year to the current fiscal year inclusive, listed by date: (a) what is the total amount of this funding, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) program, (iv) any other government body; and (b) how many full time and part-time jobs is this estimated to have created?

Q-422 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With respect to interactions between the government and any citizens or residents of Canada, what interactions have taken place since January 1, 2010, broken down by (a) government department; (b) number of interactions by type per month; (c) minimum time between initial request and closure of the file; (d) maximum time between initial request and closure of the file; (e) average time between initial request and closure of the file; (f) number of the interactions that were satisfactorily resolved; (g) number of interactions that were closed without being resolved; (h) number of interactions that remain open and unresolved; and (i) what policy or policies govern these interactions?

Q-432 — October 16, 2013 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With respect to the Manolis L. shipwreck and subsequent oil leak in the Change Islands and all events and circumstances related to this incident, what are the details of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, or other written material pertaining to this incident?

Q-442 — October 17, 2013 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to search and rescue and Canadian Coast Guard ships (CCGS) in Newfoundland and Labrador (N.L.): (a) does the government plan to replace or provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in Burin and Burgeo, N.L., (i) if so, how many new lifeboats will be allocated to each town, (ii) is the replacement of lifeboats in Burin and Burgeo part of the $488 million announcement by the Honourable Peter Mackay, P.C., M.P. on June 26, 2013, (iii) was the announcement scheduled to take place prior to the date referred to in (ii) at any time, (iv) what was the reason for changing the day of the announcement, (v) when will the boats be delivered, (vi) are there any delays in the delivery of the boats, (vii) if so, why are there delays in the delivery of the boats, (viii) does the government plan to replace or provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in other communities in Random—Burin—St. George’s, (ix) if so, which communities will have their lifeboats replaced or be provided with additional lifeboats, (x) when will the announcements for other communities take place, (xi) when will the lifeboats in these communities be delivered; and (b) what is the reason for placing the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell on lay-up, (i) has the government consulted stakeholders on the impact to search and rescue of this measure, (ii) if so, which stakeholders were consulted, (iii) what were the positions of each stakeholder group on this measure, (iv) how many hours will it take for the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell to return to operational status in the event of an emergency, (v) does the government intend to decommission the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell, (vi) has there been any discussion about decommissioning the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell, (vii) what tasks did the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell perform, (viii) what is the government’s plan to replace this performance, (ix) which vessels will be equipped to immediately respond to an oil spill while the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is in lay-up, (x) which vessels will be equipped to immediately respond to major oil installation fires or fires on coastal and transatlantic vessels operating in water adjacent to the coast of N.L. while the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is in lay-up?

Q-452 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to the recent sale of crown land owned by Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), in the amount of 1,554.48 square meters, located on Frontenac Institute in Kingston, Ontario: (a) who is the purchaser; (b) what is the purchase price; (c) what is the closing date of the transaction; (d) what were all the measures taken to respect the Commissioner’s Directive for Real Property for CSC, in particular the statement, under Principles, that “acquisition and disposal of real property assets will be done in a fair and open manner, which shall include public consultation”; (e) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and the purchaser; (f) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and parties who expressed interest but ultimately did not purchase the land; (g) who signed the agreement; (h) under what authority; (i) on what date; and (j) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and parties other than those in (e) and (f)?

Q-462 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to the Canada Summer Career Placement Program/Summer Jobs Program: (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated to the program on an annual basis from 2005 to 2013 (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; (b) what was the total amount of funding spent through the program on an annual basis from 2005 to 2013 (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; (c) if there was a difference between funding allocated and funding spent through the program, what accounts for the difference each year, broken down by year; (d) what was the total number of student summer jobs created on an annual basis from 2005 to 2013 (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; (e) what are the names of the employers awarded funding through the program on an annual basis from 2005 to 2013 (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; (f) what was the average wage paid on an annual basis from 2005 to 2013 (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; and (g) what was the total number of hours of work funded on an annual basis from 2005 to 2013 (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding?

Q-472 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) — With regard to citizenship applicants from 2011-present, broken down by year: (a) what is the percentage breakdown of all applicants by country of birth for any countries of birth where the number of applicants represented 1% or more of the total; (b) how many applications were received from each country in (a); (c) of those in (a), broken down by country and listed as a percent, how many applicants received a residence questionnaire; (d) what is the policy for determining whether applicants receive a residence questionnaire or not; (e) has this policy been changed since 2011; and (f) if it has changed, what was the previous policy?

Q-482 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Prosperity Mine and New Prosperity Mine proposals: (a) what is the total cost incurred by the government to consider or evaluate both proposals; (b) what is the total amount of funds recovered by the government from the proponent (Taseko Mines LTD); (c) what is the total amount of funds expected to be recovered from the proponent; (d) what is the total amount of funds the government has determined as non-recoverable; and (e) what are the expected costs of continued consideration and evaluation of the project, broken down by costs that will be incurred by the government and costs that will be incurred by the proponent?

Q-492 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what is the complete and detailed breakdown of all money spent to date as part of the Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures program; (b) what is the complete and detailed breakdown of all money spent as part of the Community Adjustment Fund on measures related to Canada’s lobster industry; (c) what is the total amount of lobster landed in each lobster fishing area (LFA) in each year since 2000; (d) what is the total number of lobster fishing licenses issued in each LFA since 2000; (e) what is the total amount of lobster exported by Canada in each year since 2000, broken down by export country in both quantity and dollar value; (f) what is the total amount of lobster imported by Canada each year since 2000, broken down by country, in both quantity and dollar value; and (g) what measures will the government take to address the significantly low prices being paid to lobster fishers in 2013?

Q-502 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) what is the complete list of all Canadian Coast Guard ships in service each year since 2000, including (i) the name of each ship, (ii) the location of the home port for each ship, (iii) the number of months per year each ship is operational, (iv) the annual operating budget of each ship, (v) the number of full time and part time employees on each ship, (vi) a list of each operation undertaken by each ship, including a detailed summary of the operation, date, and location(s); (b) what are the ships that are currently slated to be taken out of service or have annual operational service times decreased; and (c) what are the ships that are currently in production and the proposed location for their home port?

Q-512 — October 17, 2013 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to the development of greenhouse gas regulations for the oil and gas sector: (a) what is the total of all relevant government expenditures related to the activities of the Process Working Group (PWG) including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details; (b) in addition to those expenditures incurred through the operations of the PWG, what are any other government expenditures regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with oil and gas sector companies including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details; (c) in addition to those expenditures incurred through the operations of the PWG, what are any other government expenditures, regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with oil and gas sector industry associations including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details; (d) in addition to those expenditures incurred through the operations of the PWG, what are any other government expenditures, regarding consultation, discussion, engagement, negotiation with the government of Alberta, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details; (e) in addition to those expenditures incurred through the operations of the PWG, what are any other government expenditures, regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with other provincial or territorial governments, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details; (f) what are the government’s expenditures, regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with First Nations representatives, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details; (g) what are the government’s expenditures, regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with representatives of other governments (e.g. municipal governments, U.S. officials, etc.), including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details; (h) what are the government’s expenditures regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with environmental organizations, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details; (i) what are the government’s expenditures regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with scientists, economists, and other independent experts, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details; and (j) what are any additional government expenditures not included above regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with other stakeholders, with a break-down of all related details, including, but not limited to, (i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details?

Q-522 — October 17, 2013 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to Enbridge’s Line 9 reversal project (Line 9 Phase l Reversal Project and Line 9B Reversal and Capacity Expansion Project): (a) what are the results of all government reports, details of briefing notes, or meeting summaries that were produced between January 1, 2011, to June 1, 2013; (b) what studies, analyses or assessments did the government undertake to determine the safety of the project, (i) what are the dates of all studies, analyses, and assessments, (ii) what are the results of each; (c) what are the details of the studies, reports, briefing notes, or meeting summaries that the government has produced regarding the economic and environmental impacts and, what are (i) the results associated with each, (ii) the costs associated with each; (d) what studies, reports, briefing notes, or meeting summaries has the government undertaken regarding greenhouse gas emissions if the Line 9 pipeline was reversed and filled with diluted bitumen, (i) what were the results of these studies, (ii) how are emissions expected to impact Canada’s ability to achieve its climate commitments; (e) what are the dates of any correspondence between the government or the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Portland Montreal Pipeline Company, and what are the key points for each correspondence; (f) what are the dates of any correspondence between the Minister of Natural Resources and the National Energy Board regarding the hearing process and applications for participation and intervener status; (g) did the Minister of Natural Resources have a role to play in the National Energy Board changing its approach to public participation in hearings, particularly those concerning the proposal to reverse and expand Line 9 and, if so, what was that role; and (h) what effect have the changes adopted in the government’s 2012 budget bills had on the Line 9 review process to date?

Q-532 — October 17, 2013 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) clinical trial being undertaken by Dr. Traboulse: (a) what milestones are reportable to the government, (i) on what date(s) is reporting expected to occur, (ii) how will this information be communicated to patients, the medical community, and the general public; (b) on what date did each of the trial sites pass ethical review; (c) on what date did recruitment of patients begin for each of the trial sites; (d) how many patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are being recruited for each site, and how is consistency in diagnosis and treatment being ensured across sites; (e) who is performing the diagnoses for CCSVI for each site, (i) how is the diagnosis being performed, including, but not limited to, ultrasound and venogram, (ii) how many diagnoses has each person undertaking the diagnosis at each site performed prior to the study, and by whom was each person trained; (f) who is performing the procedures for each site, (i) how is the procedure being performed, including, but not limited to, anesthetic, balloon size, (ii) how many procedures has each person undertaking the procedure at each site performed prior to the study, and by whom was each person trained; (g) what are the selection criteria for the trial, including, but not limited to, type of MS, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, venous abnormality/malformed valve/stenosis, mobility, (i) how do these criteria compare with the international literature, (ii) with how many international studies to date will the selection criteria be analytically comparable; (h) if both progressive and relapsing-remitting forms of MS are to be examined in the trial, how will statistical significance be ensured given that 50 of 100 patients will undergo a “sham” procedure, 25 patients will have a progressive form of the disease, and 25 will have a relapsing-remitting form of the disease, and will people with both primary progressive and secondary progressive forms of the disease be included, and if so, how will statistical significance be ensured; (i) given that research has shown numerous venous abnormalities in the head, neck, and chest of MS patients, (i) how will statistical significance be ensured if there are only a limited number of patients, but multiple types of venous or valvular abnormality, (ii) how will a venous stenosis be measured (e.g. diameter, size); (j) what outcomes will be measured, including, but not limited to, EDSS, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory, and at what time scales; (k) will patient-reported quality of life scores be included, and if so, what is the specific methodology; (l) what specific follow-up care will patients undergoing the “sham” procedure and treatment receive, and at what specific time periods; (m) if patients received the “sham” procedure, within what time period will they receive treatment; (n) how will the results of this study be interpreted within the growing international body of research, (i) to how many studies will this study be compared, (ii) to how many studies will this study be directly comparable; (o) what long-term follow-up will those enrolled in the trial receive and for what time period; (p) what is the cost of the trial, and what are each of the partners contributing, including, but not limited to funding, equipment, expertise, pharmaceutical products; (q) what is the cost of each diagnosis, (i) what is the cost of each “sham” procedure, (ii) what is the cost of each procedure; and (r) who is overseeing the trial, (i) the safety of the patients, (ii) the integrity of the results?

Q-542 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria) — With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, since January 1, 2006: (a) what are the file numbers of each set of Minutes of Proceedings for a Board of Inquiry convened to investigate the death, attempted suicide, serious injury, or injury likely to cause permanent disability of a Canadian Armed Forces member; (b) what was the date on which the Chief of Defence Staff, or a person acting on behalf of the Chief of Defence Staff, approved those minutes; (c) if the minutes have not been approved, the date by which such approval is anticipated; and (d) has a copy of the minutes of the Board of Inquiry been released to the victim or next of kin of each victim?

Q-552 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to Health Canada’s Radiofrequency Exposure Guidelines known as Safety Code 6: (a) how was the code established; (b) does the code deal with potential dangers from all electromagnetic devices; (c) what is the distinction between thermal and non-thermal effects of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy; (d) does existing research on the thermal effects of exposure to RF energy adequately determine whether such exposure is safe for humans; (e) does existing research on the non-thermal effects of exposure to RF energy adequately determine whether such exposure is safe for humans; (f) what work is Health Canada undertaking to remedy the uncertainty surrounding the non-thermal effects of exposure to RF energy by carrying out additional research into the non-thermal effects of exposure to RF energy; and (g) are changes to the code planned to include the most up-to-date scientific research on devices such as Hydro “smart” meters?

Q-562 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to the Royal Society of Canada’s Expert Panel on Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices, commissioned by Health Canada: (a) for the period of 1990-2012, how have panel members been selected; (b) for the period of 1990-2012, what has been the composition of the Panel by (i) professional background, (ii) regional origin; (c) are any conflict of interest provisions imposed on committee members and, if so, what are they; and (d) with regard to the conflict of interest provisions referred to in (c), who determines if they apply?

Q-572 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) — With regard to copyrighted material held by the government: (a) what copyrighted material does the government own, broken down by (i) department, (ii) creation date, (iii) publication date, (iv) author, (v) fee charged for use, (vi) total fees collected to date in the lifetime of the material, (vii) format or media type, (viii) cost of production, (ix) future plans, (x) for any material not available to the public, what are the reasons for the secrecy and the name and title of the person responsible for the decision to keep the material from the public; and (b) what enforcement action has the government taken to protect its copyright on any material since January, 2006, broken down by (i) department, (ii) creation date, (iii) publication date, (iv) author, (v) fee charged for use, (vi) total fees collected to date in the lifetime of the material, (vii) alleged infraction, (viii) damages sought, (ix) case status, (x) case outcome or settlement?

Q-582 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl) — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB): (a) can the department provide details of any studies carried out on helicopter night flights to oil facilities, specifically the safety of day flights versus night flights in transporting employees to and from the offshore work site; (b) has the government taken any action to implement recommendation 29(a) of the 2010 Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry into the establishment of an independent offshore safety regulator; and (c) has the government investigated the costs associated with the establishment of the office of an independent safety regulator, and, if so, can the department provide a breakdown of the cost?

Q-592 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl) — With regard to Transport Canada, and specifically the St. John's Port Authority: (a) what new commercial infrastructure projects does the Port Authority currently have underway on the St. John's waterfront; (b) what are the details of the commercial arrangements for the infrastructure projects; and (c) what other developments does the Port Authority have planned for the St. John's waterfront?

Q-602 — October 17, 2013 — Mr. Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl) — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the 2007 citations issued by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) inspectors to vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area: (a) has the government been informed of any penalties or fines imposed by the vessels’ home countries; (b) has the government inquired about any penalties of fines imposed by vessels' home countries; and (c) were the fines or penalties paid by the vessels that were fined?

Q-612 — October 18, 2013 — Ms. Jones (Labrador) — With regard to National Defence, what are the details, by description and fiscal year, of the approximately $407 million in investments at 5 Wing Goose Bay since 2006, which were referred to by the Associate Minister of National Defence during debate in the House of Commons on June 4, 2013?

Q-622 — October 18, 2013 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — With regard to the automotive and manufacturing industry in Canada, has the government worked with any global automotive or manufacturing company to increase existing investments or to bring in new automotive investments in the form of new factories, products, or jobs, to Canada since 2006?

Q-632 — October 18, 2013 — Mr. Masse (Windsor West) — With regard to the government’s imposition of a vote on Public Service Alliance of Canada members employed at Canada Border Services Agency and the court proceedings that followed, what is the total cost incurred by the government, broken down by costs of (i) research, (ii) preparation, (iii) court fees, (iv) employee time?

Q-642 — October 18, 2013 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to the letter dated June 12, 2013, I received from former Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews in response to my letter dated May 8, 2013, regarding homicides and attempted homicides among Somali-Canadian males in Canada since 2006: (a) what conferences supported by Public Safety (PS) with the Somali-Canadian community have taken place since 2006, and for each conference what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) funds provided by PS, including but not limited to, funds allocated to advertising, set-up, speakers, reports, and others; (b) what events has PS supported with the Somali-Canadian community since 2006, and for each, what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) funds provided by PS, including, but not limited to, funds allocated to advertising, set-up, speakers, reports, and others; (c) what “outreach sessions” has the PS hosted with the Somali-Canadian community since 2006, and for each outreach session what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) funds provided by the PS, including, but not limited to, funds allocated to advertising, set-up, speakers, reports, and others; (d) what meetings has PS hosted or attended since 2010 with “community representatives”, to “discuss issues including the number of Somali-Canadian men killed in gang-related violence”, and for each meeting, what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) why was there a delay of four years in hearing about the homicides; (e) what meetings with “Imams” to “discuss issues including the number of Somali-Canadian men killed in gang-related violence” have taken place since 2010, and for each meeting, what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) why was there a delay of four years in hearing about the homicides; (f) what meetings with “mothers” to “discuss issues including the number of Somali-Canadian men killed in gang-related violence” have taken place since 2010, and for each meeting, what were the (i) locations, (ii) dates, (iii) why was there was a delay of four years in hearing about the homicides; (g) how many times have “officials” met with mothers who have lost their sons, broken down by location and date, (i) why did the Minister choose not meet with these grieving mothers, (ii) how does his personal absence from such meetings reflect an appropriate level of “concern” that would give the Canadian public the “assurance” that PS is taking this issue “very seriously”; (h) what stakeholder groups amongst the Somali-Canadian community did the Minister meet with in June 2012 in Toronto, (i) what was the location and date of the meeting, (ii) were the homicides discussed and, if so, why was this not mentioned in the June 18, 2013 letter and, if not, why not, (iii) what concerns were identified, (iv) what “possible ways forward” were identified for the homicides; (i) what specific stakeholders had input into the “joint work plan”, (i) what “various meetings over the past year”, their dates, and locations were the basis for developing the work plan, (ii) what stakeholders had input into the prioritization of issues, (iii) what issues were prioritized and in what order, (iv) were homicides included in the priorities and, if so, at what rank, (v) with what stakeholders was the “joint work plan” finalized; (j) how were “Somali-Canadian leaders, youth, mothers and Imams from Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary” contacted to be part of the “October workshop”, (i) what was the date and location of the workshop, (ii) what stakeholders were present, (iii) how many grieving mothers attended, (iv) what issues were on the agenda, (v) what Members of Parliament were invited, (vi) what was the total number of participants; (k) what is the function of a PS “community’s primary point of contact” and how does this function relate to other avenues of contact, (i) how common is it for PS to have a “community’s primary point of contact”, (ii) does PS have a community primary point of contact for other communities than the Somali-Canadian community, (iii) if so, what is the name of each community for which PS has such a contact; (l) is the funding relationship between a “community’s primary point of contact” and other departments of the government considered in the acceptance of such point of contact by PS and, if so, how, including the possibility of conflicts of interest, bias, or incomplete information; (m) is the location between a “community’s primary point of contact” and other departments of the government considered in the acceptance of such point of contact by PS and, if so, how, including the possibility of conflicts of interest, bias or incomplete information; (n) how was the organization of Canadian Friends of Somalia in Ottawa chosen to be PS’s “community’s primary point of contact”, (i) was a memorandum of understanding signed and, if so, on what date, (ii) was any funding provided and, if so, by whom and on what date, (iii) what other organizations were being considered for this role by the community, (iv) is it common for PS’s “community’s primary point of contact” to be funded by other departments of the government; (o) what are all the “community steering committees” established across Canada and, for each, what are (i) their goals and milestones, (ii) the timelines for achieving the established goals; (p) what are the dates, locations, and number of people who attended each “outreach session“ with the RCMP and the Somali-Canadian community, and how were these events advertised and at what cost; (q) why was Ottawa chosen for the February 20, 2013 youth employment session hosted by PS when Toronto has a Somali-Canadian population of 140,000, Ottawa has a population of 20,000, and Edmonton has a population of 17,000; (r) when does PS plan to “extend these sessions to other cities”, (i) what are the planned locations and dates, (ii) at how many of these sessions will the RCMP be present to discuss job opportunities, (iii) why was this information not given in response to my Order Paper question which was answered June 18, 2013; and (s) what input did the Somali-Canadian community have into Bill C-51, the Safer Witness Act, (i) what stakeholder groups were invited to comment, (ii) what stakeholder groups did comment, (iii) did the Canadian Friends of Somalia in Ottawa comment, (iv) did the “community steering committees” comment, (v) did the grieving mothers comment, (vi) what specific comments as to whether the Bill would or would not encourage Somali-Canadians to come forward after a homicide or attempted homicide were made and by what stakeholders were each specific comment made and on what date?

Q-652 — October 21, 2013 — Mr. Ravignat (Pontiac) — With regard to government policies on colours used for its websites: (a) when were the most recent policies tabled; (b) were the policies approved by any ministers; (c) what research was used to develop recommended policies; (d) what were the results of this research; (e) was this research contracted out by the government and, if so, to whom; (f) what were the costs for this research and these policies; (g) what was the estimated number of person-hours required to implement the changes in colour; and (h) what were the costs required to implement colour changes?

Q-662 — October 21, 2013 — Mr. Rankin (Victoria) — With regard to data, information or privacy breaches at Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), for each year from 2002 to 2012: (a) how many breaches have occurred in total and what is the number of individuals affected by each such breach; (b) of those breaches identified in (a), how many have been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and what is the number of individuals affected by each such breach; (c) how many breaches are known to have led to criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft; and (d) why was CRA unable to provide this information in response to written question Q-1217 submitted by Charlie Angus, MP for Timmins—James Bay, on March 7, 2013?

Q-672 — October 21, 2013 — Ms. Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles) — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) in Quebec, for the fiscal years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, what is the proportion of regular claimants who exhausted their weeks of benefits, broken down by EI economic region?

Q-682 — October 21, 2013 — Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — With regard to spending on monuments and commemorative events honouring veterans, what is the total expenditure since fiscal year 2005-2006 and what is the breakdown by (i) year, (ii) year and province, (iii) year and constituency?

Q-692 — October 21, 2013 — Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — With regard to the employability of veterans in departments and agencies and the public service’s priority appointment program for veterans, since the public service’s priority appointment program for veterans came into effect: (a) how many veterans (i) have registered for the priority appointment program, broken down by year, (ii) have found a job in the public service through this program, broken down by year, (iii) have been unable to find a job in the public service within the two-year time limit; and (b) how many employees who identified themselves as veterans (i) have lost their job in the public service following the 2012 Budget cutbacks, (ii) are currently working for the government, broken down by departments and agencies, (iii) have come through the priority appointment program and are currently working for the government, broken down by departments and agencies?

Q-702 — October 21, 2013 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to the purchase of televisions for departments, agencies and crown corporations: (a) what is the amount spent per year for each department agency and crown corporation on televisions for each of the last seven years; (b) what is the proportion of those amounts spent on high definition (HD) or 3D televisions respectively; (c) what is the amount per year for televisions in the offices of ministers, deputy ministers or CEOs listed by agency and name; (d) what are the proportions of the amounts listed in (c) for HD or 3D televisions respectively?

Q-712 — October 21, 2013 — Ms. Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles) — With regard to the budget cuts made in 2013 at the National Research Council of Canada’s Herzberg Institute for Astrophysics: (a) what are the reasons that led to these cuts; (b) what impact and efficiency studies is this decision based on; (c) what groups and individuals were consulted prior to this decision; and (d) which projects will be affected?

Q-722 — October 21, 2013 — Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour) — With regard to the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court, did the government verify whether the Justice: (a) resided in Ontario and, if so, for how long; (b) resided in Quebec and, if so, for how long; and (c) is registered with or was already a member of the Barreau du Québec?

Q-732 — October 21, 2013 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With regard to the government’s allocation of the public service budget for each fiscal year starting with 2006-2007 to present: (a) what is the total number of staff, by department, in each Executive (EX) and Deputy Minister (DM) pay category; (b) what is the total number of staff in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canadian Forces, Canada Border Services Agency and Correctional Services Canada, receiving the maximum remuneration permitted, including bonuses?

Q-742 — October 21, 2013 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — With regard to the most recent Supreme Court appointment process: (a) on what dates was the Quebec Government consulted and who was consulted; (b) when was the Barreau du Quebec consulted; (c) when were judges from the Quebec Court of Appeal (QCCA) consulted; (d) concerning Justice Marc Nadon, (i) on what dates was the Quebec Government consulted regarding his nomination, (ii) when was the Barreau du Quebec consulted, (iii) when were judges from the QCCA consulted; (e) when was the issue of Justice Nadon’s eligibility first raised, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) with what response; (f) concerning Justice Nadon, (i) from whom did the government seek legal opinions, (ii) on what dates, (iii) at what cost, broken down by opinion, (iv) how many lawyers from Quebec were consulted on Justice Nadon’s eligibility, (v) how many judges from Quebec were consulted, (vi) what scholars from Quebec were consulted; (g) by what measure was the litigation risk evaluated relative to Justice Nadon’s appointment, (i) by whom, (ii) on what date, (iii) what communications were sent between the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice regarding the risk of litigation surrounding the appointment; (h) with respect to assessing Justice Nadon’s eligibility, (i) what was the role of the Department of Justice, (ii) what was the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, (iii) what was the role of the Minister of Justice, (iv) what steps did the Minister of Justice take to assure himself of Justice Nadon’s eligibility to assume a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court of Canada; (i) how much funding is allocated to any defence needed to a legal challenge to Justice Nadon’s appointment; (j) is the government aware of any instance in which a Supreme Court justice has stepped aside from his or her duties; (k) what steps is the government taking proactively (i) to ensure that Quebec is not under-represented at the Supreme Court of Canada while Justice Nadon is recused, (ii) to ensure gender parity at the Supreme Court of Canada; (l) what steps has the government taken with regard to addressing the lack of racial diversity at the Supreme Court of Canada; (m) who developed the questionnaire provided to judges in the most recent round of Supreme Court appointments, (i) what specific questions were asked of judges, (ii) what information was sought from potential justices during the process; (n) for each of the last six appointment cycles, what were the questions given to judges and what additional information was sought from candidates; and (o) what steps are being taken to modify the process of Supreme Court appointments for the next vacancy?

2 Response requested within 45 days