House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Bilingual view PDF

41st PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Journals No. 60 Monday, March 24, 2014 11:00 a.m.

Prayers

Vacancies

The Speaker informed the House that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in the House of Commons, for the Electoral District of Trinity—Spadina, in the Province of Ontario, by reason of the resignation of Ms. Olivia Chow, and that, pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, he had addressed, earlier today, his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy.

Private Members' Business

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

Mr. Goldring (Edmonton East), seconded by Mr. Payne (Medicine Hat), moved, — That, in the opinion of the House, one nationally standardized “point in time” should be recommended for use in all municipalities in carrying out homeless counts, with (a) nationally recognized definitions of who is homeless; (b) nationally recognized methodology on how the count takes place; and (c) the same agreed-upon criteria and methodology in determining who is considered to be homeless. (Private Members' Business M-455)

Debate arose thereon.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the Order was dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Business of Supply

The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply.

Mr. Scott (Toronto—Danforth), seconded by Ms. Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent), moved, — That, in the opinion of the House, proposed changes to the Elections Act that would prohibit vouching, voter education programming by Elections Canada, and the use of voter cards as identification could disenfranchise many Canadians, particularly first-time voters like youth and new Canadians, Aboriginal Canadians and seniors living in residence, and should be abandoned.

Debate arose thereon.

Statements By Members

Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements.

Oral Questions

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

Daily Routine Of Business

Tabling of Documents

Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance) laid upon the Table, — Notice of a Ways and Means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. (Ways and Means No. 11) — Sessional Paper No. 8570-412-12.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), at the request of Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), an Order of the Day was designated for the consideration of this Ways and Means motion.

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

— Nos. 412-0673, 412-0681, 412-1518, 412-1589, 412-1591 and 412-1635 concerning the fishing industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-11-04;

— Nos. 412-0678, 412-0687, 412-0691, 412-0695, 412-1100 to 412-1107, 412-1416, 412-1429, 412-1528, 412-1533, 412-1539, 412-1545, 412-1567, 412-1587, 412-1594, 412-1644, 412-1658, 412-1677, 412-1748, 412-1749, 412-1779, 412-1791 and 412-1792 concerning the mining industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-28-06;

— No. 412-0684 concerning immigration. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-15-06;

— No. 412-0688 concerning funding aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-22-09;

— No. 412-0690 concerning the Criminal Code of Canada. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-17-08;

— No. 412-1065 concerning employment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-74-03;

— Nos. 412-1066 and 412-1423 concerning pesticides. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-100-01;

— Nos. 412-1067 and 412-1676 concerning international agreements. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-21-05;

— Nos. 412-1097, 412-1420, 412-1519 and 412-1648 concerning human rights . — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-101-01;

— Nos. 412-1396 to 412-1399 concerning passports. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-102-01;

— No. 412-1404 concerning world peace. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-20-02;

— Nos. 412-1409, 412-1413 and 412-1421 concerning environmental assessment and review. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-9-04;

— No. 412-1447 concerning multiculturalism. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-103-01;

— Nos. 412-1448 to 412-1453 concerning a national day. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-68-03;

— Nos. 412-1454 to 412-1471 and 412-1517 concerning veterans' affairs. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-77-02;

— Nos. 412-1473 and 412-1476 concerning VIA Rail. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-60-06;

— Nos. 412-1477 to 412-1486 concerning missing persons. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-104-01;

— Nos. 412-1487 to 412-1491, 412-1522, 412-1523, 412-1526, 412-1527, 412-1529 to 412-1532, 412-1535, 412-1537, 412-1546 to 412-1549, 412-1572, 412-1578, 412-1582, 412-1588, 412-1590, 412-1611 to 412-1613, 412-1627, 412-1632, 412-1646, 412-1654, 412-1661 to 412-1664 and 412-1669 concerning transportation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-35-06;

— Nos. 412-1536, 412-1581, 412-1583, 412-1605, 412-1606, 412-1610, 412-1622, 412-1629, 412-1630, 412-1639 and 412-1640 concerning national parks. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-37-04;

— No. 412-1560 concerning natural gas. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-91-02;

— Nos. 412-1575, 412-1615 to 412-1619, 412-1637 and 412-1715 concerning the Canada Post Corporation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-1-07;

— No. 412-1579 concerning climate change. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-50-06;

— No. 412-1607 concerning genetic engineering. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-4-08;

— Nos. 412-1623, 412-1624, 412-1633 and 412-1660 concerning the protection of the environment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-2-06;

— Nos. 412-1653 and 412-1665 concerning cruelty to animals. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-48-05.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Mexican States on Air Transport, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated February 18, 2014. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-412-23.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Audiovisual Co-production Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of India, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated February 24, 2014. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-412-24.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Copy of the Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the French Republic concluding amendments to the Procès-verbal Applying the March 27, 1972 Agreement between Canada and France on their Mutual Fishing Relations, and Explanatory Memorandum, dated March 5, 2014. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-412-25.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), laid upon the Table, — Summary of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. — Sessional Paper No. 8532-412-26.

Presenting Reports from Committees

Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain), from the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, presented the Second Report of the Committee (review of statutory instruments). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-53.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 4) was tabled.

Mr. Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London), from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented the Ninth Report of the Committee, which was as follows:

The Committee recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, the following changes to the lists of members of the following standing committees:

Standing Committee on Finance


Nathan Cullen for Peggy Nash

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities


Larry Maguire for Devinder Shory

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology


Peggy Nash for Chris Charlton Dave Van Kesteren for Ed Holder

Standing Committee on International Trade


Devinder Shory for Ed Holder

Standing Committee on Natural Resources


Chris Charlton for Peter Julian

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities


Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet for Olivia Chow

Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs


Frank Valeriote for Jim Karygiannis

The Committee further recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, that the name of the following Member be added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities:


Devinder Shory

The Committee further recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, that the names of the following Members be deleted from the lists of associate members of the following standing committees:

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration


Olivia Chow

Standing Committee on Finance


Olivia Chow

The Committee further recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, the following changes to the lists of members of the following standing joint committees:

Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament


Guy Lauzon for Stella Ambler

Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations


Stella Ambler for Larry Maguire

The Committee further recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, that the names of the following Members be added to the lists of associate members of the following standing joint committees:

Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament


Stella Ambler Ted Falk Larry Maguire

Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations


Ted Falk Larry Maguire

The Committee further recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, that the names of the following Members be deleted from the lists of associate members of the following standing joint committees:

Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament


Brian Jean Ted Menzies

Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations


Brian Jean Ted Menzies

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 1) is tabled.

Mr. Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon), from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented the Second Report of the Committee, "Protecting Canada and Canadians, Welcoming the World : A Modern Visa System to Help Canada Seize the Moment". — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-54.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requested that the government table a comprehensive response.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13) was tabled.

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Ms. Ayala (Honoré-Mercier), seconded by Mrs. Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert), Bill C-579, An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians, was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Motions

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, during the debate tomorrow on the motion to concur in the First Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent.

By unanimous consent, it was resolved, — That the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented earlier today, be concurred in.

Presenting Petitions

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

— by , one concerning the electoral system (No. 412-2024);

— by , one concerning the grain industry (No. 412-2025);

— by , one concerning the Canada Post Corporation (No. 412-2026).

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the answers to questions Q-198, Q-207, Q-220, Q-232, Q-243, Q-245, Q-246, Q-264, Q-268 and Q-293 on the Order Paper.

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

Q-173 — — With regard to the nine regional offices of Veterans Affairs that are to be closed by February 2014 (Charlottetown, Corner Brook, Sydney, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Kelowna, Prince George, Saskatoon, and Brandon): what are the total operating costs by year for each office from 2009-2012? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-173.

Q-174 — — With regard to government spending in the province of Prince Edward Island: (a) what has been the total amount of spending in the province each year since 2006; (b) what has been the total amount of spending each year since 2006 in the constituencies of (i) Cardigan, (ii) Charlottetown, (iii) Malpeque, (iv) Egmont; and (c) what is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006, broken down by (i) the date the money was received, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program from which the funding came, (iv) the ministry responsible, (v) the designated recipient? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-174.

Q-181 — — With regard to mobile applications, broken down by department and individual project, for each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, what is the total amount spent on (i) the development, (ii) the maintenance and update, of mobile applications? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-181.

Q-192 — — With regard to outside legal counsel, legal advice, or any other form of legal assistance provided to government by non-government lawyers, and broken down by year since 2006: (a) what is the amount spent by department; (b) what program activities across government account for the top twenty expenditures used for non-government legal services; (c) what are the names of law firms used; (d) what is the breakdown of expenditure wherein the government was the defendant, by department and by cause of action; and (e) what is the breakdown of expenditure where the government was the plaintiff, by department and by cause of action? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-192.

Q-193 — — With regard to the Legal Aid Program Evaluation Final Report of 2012: (a) what is the role and mandate of the government with respect to criminal legal aid; (b) how was the policy in (a) determined and developed, when and by whom; (c) what is the role and mandate of the government with respect to civil legal aid; (d) how was the policy in (c) determined and developed, when and by whom; (e) what steps has the government taken to provide criminal legal aid; (f) what steps has the government taken to provide civil legal aid; (g) what statistics does the government track with respect to delays before provincial courts; (h) what steps has the government taken to develop national standards for the provision of legal aid; (i) what metrics has the government developed with respect to access to justice; (j) with respect to the metrics in (i), (i) how are these assessed, (ii) when was the most recent assessment, (iii) what was the conclusion of that most recent assessment, (iv) what action was taken as a result of that assessment; (k) what policy objectives have been identified with respect to (i) the challenge of access to justice, (ii) the challenge of long trials, (iii) the challenge of delays in the justice system, (iv) the challenge of dealing with deeply rooted, endemic social problems, (v) the rising cost of legal aid, (vi) the increasing demand for legal aid, (vii) concerns expressed about whether provinces and territories can continue to increase their contributions;

(l) what individual pieces of legislation have been adopted or proposed to address each of the issues in (k), broken down by sub-issues; (m) what regulations have been adopted with respect to the issues in (k), broken down by sub-issue; (n) what indicators have been identified to measure the efficiency and economy of the federal Legal Aid Program (LAP); (o) what steps have been undertaken to collect relevant data from provinces, territories and legal aid plans on the (i) effectiveness, (ii) efficiency, (iii) economy of the LAP to assist future evaluations; (p) what measures are in place to expand the use of duty council with respect to ensuring access to legal aid; (q) for the last ten years, broken down by year, what has been the average cost of a legal aid application; (r) for the last ten years, broken down by year, what has the cost been for LAP funding for criminal legal aid; (s) for the next ten years, what is the projection for funding for criminal legal aid currently represented; (t) for the last ten years, broken down by year, what has been the cost of criminal legal aid and how is this figure arrived at; and (u) for the next ten years, broken down by year, what is the projected cost of criminal legal aid and how is this figure calculated? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-193.

Q-195 — — With regard to the sale of Canadian diplomatic properties abroad, for the period from 2006-2013: (a) which properties have been sold, and for each property, (i) what was the assessed value, (ii) who was responsible for the valuation, (iii) what was the asking price, (iv) what was the final sale price, (v) what real estate agency or similar private company was engaged to execute or assist in the sale, (vi) how much was each private company paid for the sale, (vii) were there other expenses incurred (fees, taxes, etc) as part of the sale and, if so, what was the total cost; (b) which properties are for sale or are under consideration for eventual sale, and for each property, (i) what is the assessed value, (ii) who was responsible for the valuation, (iii) what is the asking price, (iv) what real estate agency or similar private company is being engaged to execute or assist in the sale, (v) how much is each private company being paid for the sale; and (c) specifically regarding the sale of MacDonald House in London, United Kingdom, (i) what was the assessed value, (ii) who was responsible for the valuation, (iii) what was the asking price, (iv) what was the final sale price, (v) how much was Savills plc. paid for the sale, (vi) was any other private company engaged to provide services during or related to the sale, (vii) if so, what was the name of each company, what service did it provide, and how much was it paid, (viii) were there other expenses incurred (fees, taxes, etc) as part of the sale and, if so, what was the total cost? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-195.

Q-196 — — With regard to Youth Mobility Agreements, for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) with which countries does Canada have an agreement; (b) how many openings were there for Canadian youth to travel to each country under the auspices of the agreement; (c) how many Canadians travelled to each country under the auspices of the agreement; (d) how many openings were there for youth from the other countries to travel to Canada under the auspices of the agreement; and (e) how many youths from each country travelled to Canada under the auspices of the agreement? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-196.

Q-200 — — With regard to outside legal services provided by non-government lawyers, since 2006: (a) by what means does the government select external lawyers and law firms to provide legal services; (b) what role do ministers play in approving which law firms receive contracts related to outside legal services; (c) how many times have external law firms or lawyers been used for the purpose of providing advice, consultation or drafting of any government legislation or regulation and what were the subject matters of the proposed legislation or regulation; (d) how many times has the government sought outside legal advice from a lawyer or law firm from outside of Canada; and (e) how many times has the government sought legal advice, consultations or technical support from any non-Canadian law firm in the drafting of legislation or regulation? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-200.

Q-201 — — With regard government owned aircrafts, since 2012: (a) what is the list of types of aircrafts operated by the government and the passenger capacity for each; (b) excluding aircrafts operated by the Department of National Defense, how many aircrafts are available for use by ministers; (c) excluding aircrafts operated by the Department of National Defense, how many times have ministers requested and used government aircrafts; and (d) excluding aircrafts operated by the Department of National Defense, how many times have ministers requested and used government aircraft for travel outside of Canada and for what purpose? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-201.

Q-202 — — With regard to removal orders, by country and for each calendar year from 2006-2013: (a) for each deportation order issued, what is (i) the departure order, (ii) the exclusions order, (iii) the specific reference in Canadian law that allowed for the order to be issued; and (b) for each deportation order executed, what is (i) the departure order, (ii) the exclusions order, (iii) the specific reference in Canadian law that allowed for the order to be issued? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-202.

Q-203 — — With regard to materials prepared for past ministers or their staff, from April 1, 2013 to present, for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-203.

Q-204 — — With regard to materials prepared for past ministers or their staff, from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013, for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-204.

Q-205 — — With regard to materials prepared for past or current deputy heads of departments, crown corporations and agencies or their staff from April 1, 2013 to present, for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-205.

Q-208 — — With regard to Canada’s Muskoka Initiative: (a) what definition of family planning services is the government using; (b) what are the top five projects recipient of family planning funding and their amounts; and (c) regarding the $5 million Canada has pledged to fight early and forced marriage, is this new funding or redirected from funds under the Muskoka Initiative? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-208.

Q-209 — — With regard to grants and contributions approvals at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD): (a) for each minister, what is the grants and contributions approval process; (b) for each minister, as of December 11, 2013, how many grants or contributions applications have been approved by senior bureaucrats and await final approval from the minister; (c) for each minister, which programs currently have projects, grants or contributions awaiting approval by the minister; (d) for each grant or contribution currently awaiting approval from its respective minister, (i) under which program is this grant or contribution considered, (ii) on what date was the application, if relevant, received by the department, (iii) on what date was the application approved by the relevant DFATD staff, (iv) on what date was the application sent to the minister’s office, (v) on what date, if relevant, will each grant or contribution be approved; (e) what is the notification process for successful grant and contribution applications; and (f) in the last fiscal year, what was the average approval time period between receipt of a project or grant or contribution application and final decision? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-209.

Q-211 — — With regard to the constituency of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, in fiscal year 2011-2012, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount, what is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-211.

Q-212 — — With regard to the constituency of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, in fiscal year 2012-2013, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount, what is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-212.

Q-213 — — With regard to outside carbon storage and the risk of spontaneous combustion: (a) what safety precautions does the government require federally regulated companies to take to prevent fires; (b) how often are these facilities inspected; (c) what risk assessment carried out by the government was completed with respect to outdoor carbon storage and the risk of spontaneous combustion; (d) when were these assessments, if any, completed, what were the findings and which of these studies have been released; (e) what were the dates and findings of all inspections completed at the Port of Québec over the past five years; (f) what are the names and locations of each federally regulated company where bulk carbon is stored; (g) how many inspections were completed at each federally regulated site over the past five years; (h) how many inspectors were sent to complete this kind of inspection; (i) what emergency plans were implemented regarding the risk of spontaneous combustion of carbon on federally regulated sites and which department or agency is responsible for the implementation of emergency plans; and (j) what analyses were completed to study the government’s potential liability in the event of an emergency or major accident on a federally regulated site where carbon is stored? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-213.

Q-215 — — With regard to the Employment Insurance (EI) appeals process: (a) what was the rationale to replace the EI Board of Referees and EI Umpire process with the Social Security Tribunal (SST); (b) how many Boards of Referees and Board of Referee members were there at the end of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; (c) why were there reductions in the outstanding number of Board of Referees members year over year; (d) what was the standard for time to hear an initial appeal by the Board of Referees and the result in meeting the standard for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013; (e) what was the annual cost to government to administer the EI Board of Referees and EI Umpire appeals processes for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013; (f) how many EI appeals cases were outstanding with the EI Board of Referees as of March 31, 2013; (g) how many cases referenced in (f) received a decision from the EI Board of Referees as of October 31, 2013;

(h) what was the expected annual cost savings to replace the Board of Referees and the EI Umpire appeals process with the EI general section and appeals section of the SST; (i) what is the cost of the EI section of the SST for the period April 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013 and how does it compare to the planned budget amount; (j) do cases dismissed by the SST EI section specifically state the right of the appellant to appeal the SST decision and the time period to do so, and if not, what is the legal basis for omitting such information; (k) how does the government ensure that appellants who do not have access to or know how to use the internet understand what their appeal rights are, if that is the only method through which they are made known; (l) how many EI appeals have been (i) sent to the EI General section, (ii) heard, (iii) decided since April 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013; (m) of the cases referred to in (l), how many appeals have been (i) allowed, (ii) summarily dismissed, (iii) dismissed; (n) what was the expected goal for the percentage of cases to be heard by the EI general section using (i) video, (ii) telephone, (iii) in person; (o) how many cases and percentage of cases heard by the EI general section have been (i) in person, (ii) by telephone, (iii) via video; and (p) are there official video conferencing centres that appellants must visit to have their case heard and, if so, (i) how many centres were there, (ii) where were they as of September 2013? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-215.

Q-216 — — With respect to the Canada Job Grant (CJG): (a) how many stakeholder consultations took place since the CJG was announced; (b) where did the consultations take place; (c) which stakeholders received personal invitations; (d) which stakeholders participated in the consultations; (e) how many stakeholders submitted briefs concerning the CJG; (f) which trades or professions does the government believe the CJG will assist in training and what evidence does the government have to support this belief; (g) what is the total cost to date of media advertising for the CJG, broken down by (i) date of purchase, (ii) media type; (h) what evidence (including, but not limited to, statistics, documents and other data) was the basis for the creation of the CJG; (i) how many months of training does the government believe on average will be provided by the CJG; and (j) will training be limited to high demand occupation and, if so, what are they? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-216.

Q-219 — — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, what is the total number of entries of temporary foreign workers, and total number of temporary foreign workers present for each of the following areas, (i) Edmonton, (ii) Calgary, (iii) Wood Buffalo, (iv) Lethbridge, (v) Red Deer, (vi) Medicine Hat, (vii) Grande Prairie, (viii) other regions in Alberta? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-219.

Q-222 — — With regard to the EQuilibrium Communities Initiatives (ECI): (a) what information did the government have concerning the lobbying activities of (i) Groupe Pacific, (ii) Michael Bedzow, (iii) Suzanne Deschamps, (iv) Pacific International Inc., prior to its awarding of a $177,000 grant from the ECI to Groupe Pacific; (b) were the four entities listed in (a) registered as lobbyists with the government prior to the awarding of the ECI grant; (c) what actions has the government taken since certain activities in Quebec of the four entities listed in (a) were recognized as unregistered lobbying; (d) why did the government award a grant to that project; (e) what analysis and research has the government engaged in concerning the Meadowbrook Golf Course area; and (f) what kind of oversight mechanism does the government have over grants such as the ECI to ensure that the government does not provide support and funding to projects that operate contrary to the recommendations of municipal and provincial entities including, but not limited to, the Office de consultation publique de Montréal and the Montreal Urban Agglomeration Council? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-222.

Q-224 — — With regard to government spending in the constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine: what is the total amount of funding, for each fiscal year from 2010 to 2013 to date, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-224.

Q-227 — — With regard to the Prime Minister’s “24 Seven” videos: (a) what are the development, preparation and design costs for this project; (b) how many people are working on this project each week and what are their titles; (c) what is the weekly production cost; (d) how many times has each video been viewed; (e) who approves the final edit of these videos; (f) what equipment is used to produce and edit the videos and how much did this equipment cost; and (g) was a call for tenders issued for the production of these videos and, if so, what were the bids? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-227.

Q-228 — — With regard to language courses taken by ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries outside of Canada between January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2013, for each ot these courses: (a) in what establishment, city and country did each take place; (b) what were the dates for each; (c) who took each; (d) how much did each cost; and (e) what language was being taught in each? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-228.

Q-229 — — With regard to Industry Canada's Small Business Financing Program, broken down by fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what is the total number of applications filed for financing under the program; and (b) how many applications have been granted a loan and for what amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-229.

Q-230 — — With regard to computer security products used by the government from RSA Security LLC (RSA): (a) what departments, agencies and crown corporations have used RSA products for each of the past eight years; (b) what departments, agencies and crowns corporations have contracted with RSA for each of the last seven years with details of (i) contract amount, (ii) contract length, (iii) services or products provided; and (c) what is the total amount of RSA SecurID cards purchased or acquired by each department, agency and crown corporation for each of the last seven years? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-230.

Q-231 — — With regard to rail safety in Canada: (a) how many railway employee reports relating to safety, or to other safety concerns, has Transport Canada received since the amended Railway Safety Act came into force on May 1, 2013; (b) with regard to the reports in (a), what is Transport Canada's process for (i) reviewing, (ii) investigating, (iii) reporting, (iv) corrective measures, (v) safety advisories or bulletins; (c) with regard to the reports in (a), how many Transport Canada inspectors (i) have been assigned to review the reports, (ii) have performed on-site inspections as follow-up to the reports; (d) how many railway employee reports relating to safety, or to other safety concerns, has the Transportation Safety Board of Canada received for the period of 2006-2013; and (e) for each year since 2006, with regard to the reports in (d), how many (i) were for unsafe conditions, (ii) were for unsafe procedures and practices, (iii) required corrective action, (iv) were satisfactorily resolved? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-231.

Q-233 — — With regard to requests by government agencies to telecommunications service providers (TSP) to provide information about customers’ usage of communications devices and services: (a) in 2012 and 2013, how many such requests were made; (b) of the total referred to in (a), how many requests were made by (i) RCMP, (ii) Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (iii) Competition Bureau, (iv) Canada Revenue Agency, (v) Canada Border Services Agency, (vi) Communications Security Establishment Canada;

(c) for the requests referred to in (a), how many of each of the following types of information were requested, (i) geolocation of device (broken down by real-time and historical data), (ii) call detail records (as obtained by number recorders or by disclosure of stored data), (iii) text message content, (iv) voicemail, (v) cell tower logs, (vi) real-time interception of communications (i.e. wire-tapping), (vii) subscriber information, (viii) transmission data (e.g. duration of interaction, port numbers, communications routing data, etc.), (ix) data requests (e.g. web sites visited, IP address logs), (x) any other kinds of data requests pertaining to the operation of TSPs’ networks and businesses, broken down by type; (d) for each of the request types referred to in (c), what are all of the data fields that are disclosed as part of responding to a request; (e) of the total referred to in (a), how many of the requests were made (i) for real-time disclosures, (ii) retroactively, for stored data, (iii) in exigent circumstances, (iv) in non-exigent circumstances, (v) subject to a court order; (f) of the total referred to in (a), (i) how many of the requests did TSPs fulfill, (ii) how many requests did they deny and for what reasons; (g) do the government agencies that request information from TSPs notify affected TSP subscribers that information pertaining to their telecommunications service has been accessed by the government, (i) if so, how many subscribers are notified per year, (ii) by which government agencies;

(h) for each type of request referred to in (c), broken down by agency, (i) how long is the information obtained by such requests retained by government agencies, (ii) what is the average time period for which government agencies request such information (e.g. 35 days of records), (iii) what is the average amount of time that TSPs are provided to fulfil such requests, (iv) what is the average number of subscribers who have their information disclosed to government agencies; (i) what are the legal standards that agencies use to issue the requests for information referred to in (c); (j) how many times were the requests referred to in (c) based specifically on grounds of (i) terrorism, (ii) national security, (iii) foreign intelligence, (iv) child exploitation;

(k) what is the maximum number of subscribers that TSPs are required by government agencies to monitor for each of the information types identified in (c); (l) has the government ever ordered (e.g. through ministerial authorization or a court order) the increase of one of the maximum numbers referred to in (k); (m) do TSPs ever refuse to comply with requests for information identified in (c) and, if so, (i) why were such requests refused, (ii) how do government agencies respond when a TSP refuses to comply; and (n) in 2012 and 2013, did government agencies provide money or other forms of compensation to TSPs in exchange for the information referred to in (a) and, if so, (i) how much money have government agencies paid, (ii) are there different levels of compensation for exigent or non-exigent requests? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-233.

Q-234 — — With regard to tracking by government agencies of customers’ usage of communications devices and services: do government agencies use their own (i) tracking products (e.g. "IMSI Catchers"), (ii) infiltration software (e.g. zero day exploits, malware such as FinFisher, etc.), (iii) interception hardware (i.e. placed within or integrated with a company’s network)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-234.

Q-235 — — With regard to government spending in the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie: what was the total amount of funding for each fiscal year from 2010 to 2013 to the present, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-235.

Q-236 — — With regard to FedNor's Community Futures Program, broken down by fiscal year, since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what is the total number of applications filed for financing under the program; and (b) how many applicants have been granted a loan and for what amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-236.

Q-238 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) consolidation of 11 DFO libraries into four DFO libraries: (a) which groups were consulted or gave input in developing the consolidation of DFO libraries; (b) which departments, agencies and offices were consulted or gave input in developing the consolidation of DFO libraries; (c) which individuals were consulted or gave input in developing the consolidation of DFO libraries; (d) how many titles were held by DFO libraries in each of the last five years; (e) how many titles are currently held in DFO libraries; (f) how many titles are projected to be held in DFO libraries in 2015; (g) which documents were digitized prior to consolidation and what was the criteria to determine priority/order of documents digitized; (h) how and by whom was the digitization plan developed and contracted; (i) how much time was given for digitization prior to the disposal of documents; (j) what documents are no longer available in DFO libraries; (k) what is the acquisition plan for new materials, (i) how was this acquisition plan developed, (ii) by whom, (iii) who was consulted, (iv) on what date, (v) when was this plan implemented; (l) how does the cost of acquisition compare with the cost of retention;

(m) how do the findings in (y) compare with the projected trends for the acquisition and retention plans for the next five years; (n) what cost-benefit analyses were undertaken regarding the consolidation of DFO libraries, (i) by whom, (ii) on what date, (iii) what metrics were developed to assess the benefits of consolidation of DFO libraries, (iv) what metrics were developed to assess the benefits of material retention, (v) what qualitative factors were considered in the decision-making process, (vi) how were these considered, (vii) by whom, (viii) on what date; (o) in what way was the public informed of the consolidation plan, (i) on what dates, (ii) with what process for consultation, (iii) with what timeline for participation; (p) in what ways was public input considered in the decision to consolidate the DFO libraries;

(q) in what ways was the public informed of the ultimate decision; (r) which non-governmental stakeholders were identified in development of this policy; (s) in what ways were non-governmental stakeholders informed of the consolidation plan, (i) on what dates, (ii) with what process for consultation, (iii) with what timeline for participation; (t) in what ways was non-governmental stakeholders' input considered in the decision to consolidate the DFO libraries; (u) in what ways were non-governmental stakeholders informed of the ultimate decision;

(v) in what way were parliamentarians informed of the consolidation plan, (i) on what dates, (ii) with what process for consultation, (iii) with what timeline for participation; (w) in what ways was the input of parliamentarians considered in the decision to consolidate the DFO libraries; (x) in what ways were parliamentarians informed of the ultimate decision; (y) for the last 10 years, broken down by DFO library, what equipment has been requested and provided, and which libraries were provided with additional resources for the purpose of digitizing their collections; (z) for the last 10 years, broken down by DFO library, how many staff have been employed in full-time equivalents (FTE); (aa) for the last 10 years, broken down by DFO library, how many staff have been trained in digitization, by FTE;

(bb) for the last 10 years, broken down by DFO library, how many staff have been trained in retention, by FTE; (cc) what partnership agreements or information-sharing agreements do DFO libraries have with other library institutions and how are these agreements impacted by library consolidation; (dd) what service standards does DFO develop for its libraries, (i) how have these standards been impacted by library consolidation, (ii) broken down by the last five years, what service standards were established, (iii) broken down by the next five years, what service standards are projected; (ee) were any collection documents shredded; (ff) were any collection documents incinerated;

(gg) what plans were in place to ensure that disposal of collection materials would be done in an environmentally-friendly way; (hh) were the disposed materials considered for donations, (i) did the government reach out to any organizations or institutions to assess interest in the donation of these materials, (ii) did the government donate any titles to any organization or institution, (iii) did the government receive any requests for donations, (iv) how did the government respond to these requests; (ii) what plans and mechanisms are in place to assess the long-term impact of this policy change, and what reports will be published concerning any consequences; (jj) have any disposed titles been identified as having important scientific impact or value; (kk) have any disposed titles been identified as having important cultural impact or value; (ll) have any disposed titles been identified as having important historical impact or value; (mm) what percentage of disposed material was Canadian content; (nn) were any collection documents not digitized before disposal, and if so, why; and (oo) with the closure of the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, (i) what will the consequences and repercussions of the closure of this institution be, (ii) what were the plans and consultations around prioritization of digitalization and physical preservation of the Institute’s French-language documents, (iii) with whom did the plans and consultations take place, (iv) are there plans for the establishment of other French-language libraries? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-238.

Q-239 — — With regard to the appointment to the Supreme Court of Justice Marc Nadon, and the information provided to MPs on the ad hoc committee and available on the website of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada which notes that “Each candidate was asked to identify five decisions for particular consideration by the Panel, preferably dealing with issues coming within the usual scope of the Supreme Court of Canada […] As far as possible, the choice of five decisions was to reflect at least one of each of the following areas of law: constitutional law (Charter or federalism), criminal law (or national security), civil law, administrative law, and the candidates’ choice”: (a) how was this list of areas of law developed; (b) who determined which areas of law to be included; (c) by what criteria were the areas of law determined; (d) how were these areas identified; (e) how were areas of knowledge important to the court identified and assessed; (f) in what ways was the particular legal expertise of the departing justice assessed; (g) what impact does the particular legal expertise of the departing justice have on the development of the areas of law sought;

(h) how was five determined to be the appropriate number of cases; (i) for each of the last eight appointment cycles, broken down by cycle, (i) how many cases were sought from candidates, (ii) which specific areas of law were to be reflected, (iii) what other judicial writings were sought, if any, (iv) what is the equivalent wording to the phrases identified in the question, (v) how were the areas of law determined, (vi) how was the number of cases determined, (vii) how long were candidates given to provide cases and materials, (viii) were candidates given a choice between Charter or federalism within the area of constitutional law, (ix) were candidates given a choice between criminal or national security, (x) was national security in any way part of the area list, (xi) were candidates asked for academic or research works, (xii) were candidates allowed to provide academic or research works, (xiii) were candidates asked for speeches, (xiv) were candidates allowed to provide speeches, (xv) in what way were the case exigencies communicated to candidates; (j) what mechanisms exist for ensuring the appropriateness, relevance, and probative value of the materials sought from candidates; (k) what mechanisms or processes exist to ensure a candidate’s choice of cases conforms with the areas of law specified; (l) what restrictions are there on the areas of law for which cases could be sought; (m) what ensures that only cases of types that would be heard by the Supreme Court would be sought from candidates;

(n) what ensures that the areas of law specified reflect the workload of the Supreme Court; (o) whose ultimate responsibility is the development of the list of areas of law for which candidates are asked to submit cases; (p) what role exists for Parliament in the determination of this list; (q) what is the role of the Minister of Justice in the determination of the number of cases sought from candidates; (r) what is the role of the Minister of Justice in the determination of the areas of law sought from candidates; (s) what is the role of the Prime Minister in the determination of the number of cases sought from candidates; (t) what is the role of the Prime Minister in the determination of the areas of law sought from candidates; (u) what is the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs in the determination of the number of cases sought from candidates; (v) what is the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs in the determination of the areas of law sought from candidates; (w) what is the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs in the process of ensuring candidates provide the information sought; (x) does the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs provide advice to the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister on the information that should be sought from candidates; (y) does the Department of Justice provide advice to the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister on the information that should be sought from candidates; (z) with whom does the Minister of Justice consult on the information that should be sought from candidates; (aa) with whom does the Prime Minister consult on the information that should be sought from candidates;

(bb) with regard to the areas of law identified for the Nadon appointment, (i) how do these differ, if at all, from those identified for the vacancy that resulted in the appointment of Justice Wagner, (ii) with whom did the Minister of Justice consult in identifying these areas of law, (iii) with whom did the Prime Minister consult in identifying these areas of law; (cc) with what other agencies or departments does the Prime Minister’s Office work or consult in developing the list of areas of law; (dd) with what external organizations, individuals or groups did the Prime Minister’s Office work or consult in developing this list of areas of case law to be sought; (ee) how much did the development of this list cost and what is the breakdown for this figure; (ff) how much did the overall appointment process cost and what is the breakdown for this figure; (gg) how much have the previous five appointment cycles cost and what are the breakdowns for these figures; (hh) in what ways is Parliament informed of the number and type of cases being sought from candidates to the Supreme Court; (ii) what requirements are provided to candidates, if any, regarding how recent decisions must be in the areas of laws indicated; (jj) if cases provided are unilingual, whose responsibility is the translation of said judgment and who bears the cost for translation; (kk) for whose benefit are the cases provided; and (ll) who reviews the cases if not a panel of MPs? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-239.

Q-244 — — With regard to Canadians with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): (a) how much money has the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) invested or allocated into researching ME/CFS in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, specifically into: (i) the etiology, (ii) diagnostic markers, (iii) pathophysiology, (iv) treatment of ME/CFS; (b) how much research has CIHR funded into treating ME/CFS with (i) Rituximab, (ii) other autoimmune medications, (iii) anti-viral medications, (iv) other medications; (c) what strategies has CIHR designed and implemented to ensure that ME/CFS research is fairly funded; (d) what strategies has CIHR designed and implemented to (i) develop a ME/CFS scientific research community in Canada, (ii) ensure that the ME/CFS research community is multidisciplinary bringing together immunologists, neurologists, cardiologists, endocrinologists, system biologists, geneticists, etc.; (e) has CIHR considered creating a new institute to focus on this emerging area; (f) has CIHR outlined areas of ME/CFS research as priorities for funding, and designating a specific amount of money for ME/CFS research and, if so, how much; (g) will CIHR amend the grant application process to remove the barriers for new and stigmatized conditions to ensure that ME/CFS as an emerging area of research has a fair chance of being funded;

(h) how has the government, including (i) Health Canada (HC), (ii) CIHR, (iii) Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), (iv) Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), (v) Statistics Canada (StatCan), (vi) Department of Justice Canada (JUS), (vii) Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) and (viii) Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) educated itself on ME/CFS; (i) did representatives from (i) HC, (ii) CIHR, (iii) PHAC attend or will they be attending (1) the Invest in ME International Conferences, (2) the Biennial International Association for CFS/ME Conference in Ottawa in 2011, (3) 2014 Stanford University ME/CFS Symposium on March 19, 2014, (4) the Biennial International Association for CFS/ME Conference co-hosted by Stanford University from March 20-23, 2014; (j) to what extent has the government, including (i) HC, (ii) CIHR, (iii) PHAC, (iv) ESDC, (v) StatCan, (vi) JUS, (vii) TBS, (viii) CRA, fulfilled its obligation under the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (article 4.3) to closely consult with and actively involve people with ME/CFS through their representative organizations, notably the National ME/FM Action Network; (k) when will (i) the Minister of Health, (ii) Health Canada (iii) CIHR, (iv) PHAC, (v) ESDC, (vi) StatCan, (vii) JUS, (viii) TBS, (ix) CRA next meet with the National ME/FM Action Network; (l) when will foundational documents, notably (i) CFS/ME: A Primer for Clinical Practitioners, (ii) Profile and Impact of 23 Chronic Conditions in the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey, be posted on government information websites in English and French; (m) how is the government working with the provinces, territories, professional organizations, educational institutions and other stakeholders to meet the needs of Canadians with ME/CFS; (n) what steps has the government taken to ensure that ME/CFS patients in its jurisdiction have access to appropriate medical care; (o) how many medical professionals in Canada including (i) doctors, (ii) nurses currently specialize in ME/CFS and how is the Health Human Resources Strategy ensuring that there will be an adequate supply of health providers specializing in ME/CFS in Canada in the future;

(p) how is the Health Care Policy Contribution Program being used to improve health care for ME/CFS patients; (q) how is the government working with stakeholders to deal with other needs of Canadians with ME/CFS shown by the 2005 and 2010 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) including (i) reducing the levels of unmet home care needs, (ii) reducing the levels of food insecurity, (iii) increasing the sense of community belonging experienced by Canadians with this condition; (r) why has the CCHS decided to monitor the extent and impact of ME/CFS, only every four years; (s) will the government review disability programs and services to ensure that they cover the full spectrum of disabilities so that people with ME/CFS have fair and equitable access and will the government review the information and documents it disseminates to ensure that ME/CFS issues are presented adequately and fairly; (t) when will the Canada Pension Plan-Disability Adjudication Tool that guides adjudicators in their assessment of ME/CFS, Fibromyalgia, Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and Chronic Pain cases be reviewed in conjunction with the stakeholder communities to ensure that people with the conditions have fair and equal access to Canada Pension Plan-Disability; and (u) when will the Canada Pension Plan-Disability Adjudication Tool that guides adjudicators in their assessment of ME/CFS, Fibromyalgia, Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and Chronic Pain cases be posted on government websites? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-244.

Q-247 — — With regard to scientific research and the communications policies of Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the National Research Council of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, for each of these departments or agencies during the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013: (a) how many media requests were received, broken down by date, topic, requestor, person requested for interview/comment, method of request (email, phone call, letter, etc.), and approval status; (b) how many media requests were completed, broken down by date of request, date of response, topic, requestor, person who provided the interview/comment, method of request (email, phone call, letter, etc.), and method of response (email, phone call, letter, etc.); (c) how many media requests were not completed, broken down by date of request, topic, requestor, person requested for interview/comment, and reason the request was declined; (d) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from cabinet regarding the communications policy, including document and file numbers; (e) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from cabinet regarding specific media requests, broken down by date of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order, and document and file number of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order;

(f) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from the departments named regarding the communications policy, including document and file numbers; (g) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from the departments named regarding specific media requests, broken down by date of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order, and document and file number of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order; (h) what trends has each department named observed with respect to the total number of media requests, those answered and those declined; (i) what accounts for any trends observed in (h); (j) which media requests were referred to cabinet at any point and why; (k) which media requests were referred to the Prime Minister’s Office at any point and why; (l) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the communications policy, including document and file numbers; and (m) what memos, directives, guidelines and orders were issued from the Prime Minister’s Office regarding specific media requests, broken down by date of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order, and document and file number of media request, date of memo, directive, guideline or order? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-247.

Q-248 — — With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario's Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund: (a) broken down by successful applicant's project name, description, project location, postal code of project location, and federal contribution, how many individual jobs, in full-time equivalents, were created; (b) for each of the jobs in (a), how long is each job projected to last; (c) broken down by the successful applicant's project name, description, project location, postal code of project location, and federal contribution, how many individual jobs, in full-time equivalents, were maintained for at least one year; (d) broken down by the successful applicant's project name, description, project location, postal code of project location, and federal contribution, how many individual jobs, in full-time equivalents, were maintained for at least two years; (e) what were the criteria for determining success of applicants; (f) who is responsible for deciding what criteria determines the success of applicants; (g) who is responsible for evaluating applications, and under what authority; (h) which departments, agencies or offices were consulted or gave input in developing evaluation tools for applications; (i) which groups and organizations were consulted or gave input in developing evaluation tools for applications; (j) which individuals were consulted or gave input in developing evaluation tools for applications; and (k) broken down by postal code, how many applications were received? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-248.

Q-249 — — With regard to wastewater produced by the hydraulic fracturing process: (a) what federal guidelines govern the release of this wastewater into Canada's watercourses; (b) what federal guidelines govern the use of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing in the production of other products like cement; (c) in what way do the guidelines in (a) and (b) take into account the chemical composition of the wastewater to be (i) released into watercourses, (ii) used in the production process for other products; (d) when wastewater from hydraulic fracturing is used in the production of other goods, (i) is this wastewater considered a release of chemicals into the environment, (ii) must this be reported in the National Pollutants Release Inventory; and (e) what is the volume of wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing in Canada, per year since 2010, broken down by province? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-249.

Q-252 — — With regard to the ongoing negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change and in accordance with decision -/CP.1 ("Further Advancing the Durban Platform") of the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties in Warsaw, “To invite all Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined contributions [...] and to communicate them [...] in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the intended contributions”: (a) which steps have already been undertaken by the government to determine Canada's contribution to the global effort to address climate change under the Convention in the post-2020 period; (b) what are the government's further plans to undertake the work necessary to determine a contribution by Canada to the global effort to address climate change under the Convention and to do so with a view of being able to communicate this commitment well in advance of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties in early 2015;

(c) which steps have already been undertaken and what are the government's further plans to establish a framework of criteria for determining (i) that the "nationally determined contribution", referred to above, constitutes a “fair contribution” by Canada in accordance with the principles of the Convention, including taking into account Canada's responsibility and capability and other countries' development and adaptation needs, (ii) that the contribution is sufficient to achieve the overall aim of limiting global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels; (d) what are the government's plans to ensure public participation and the involvement of MPs in this process and how does the government plan to consult with climate scientists, economists, First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, members of the business community, members of civil society, legal experts, and other Canadians on Canada's contribution;

(e) how does the government plan to involve other levels of government, including provincial, territorial, First Nations and municipal, into the overall planning process, given that a substantial part of the overall contribution will have to be implemented by other levels of government; (f) in the event that Canada fails to achieve its current national climate target for 2020, what are the government's plans for making up for any pre-2020 shortfall in the post-2020 period; and (g) is the Prime Minster going to represent Canada at the high-level summit on climate change, to be convened by the Secretary General of the United Nations on September 23, 2014 and, if so, what pledges will the Prime Minister bring with him to the summit and, if not, who will be representing the government at this event? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-252.

Q-254 — — With regard to government spending in the federal electoral district of Sherbrooke: what is the total amount of spending since fiscal year 2010 up to and including the current fiscal year to date, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-254.

Q-255 — — With regard to data, information, or privacy breaches involving government departments, institutions and agencies, for 2013: (a) how many breaches have occurred in total, broken down by (i) department, institution or agency, (ii) the number of individuals affected by the breach; (b) of those breaches identified in (a), how many have been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, broken down by (i) department, institution or agency, (ii) the number of individuals affected by the breach; and (c) how many breaches are known to have led to criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft, broken down by department, institution or agency? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-255.

Q-256 — — With regard to briefing documents prepared for all senior associate deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers from April 1, 2013 to present, what are (i) the dates, (ii) the titles or subject matters, (iii) the department's internal tracking number? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-256.

Q-257 — — With regard to the Buffalo search-and-rescue (SAR) aircraft: (a) what spare parts were purchased during fiscal years (i) 2009-2010, (ii) 2010-2011, (iii) 2011-2012, (iv) 2012-2013; (b) from which countries were these parts purchased; (c) what was the cost of each part; (d) what constitutes "continued airworthiness" of the Buffalo SAR aircraft; (e) what are the safety implications of using engines "of a different variant" for the Buffalo SAR aircraft; (f) how many of the six Buffalo and eight Hercules SAR aircraft are currently in working condition; (g) what were the maintenance costs of the Buffalo SAR aircraft during fiscal years (i) 2009-2010, (ii) 2010-2011, (iii) 2011-2012, (iv) 2012-2013;

(h) what strategies are being considered to maintain airworthiness of the Buffalo SAR aircraft prior to the arrival of replacement aircraft; (i) how many occasions were the requested Buffalo SAR aircraft unavailable when called upon in calendar years (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (j) how many aircraft manufacturers have indicated interest in competing for the Buffalo SAR aircraft replacement contract; (k) is the Italian C-27J Spartan one of the options being considered; (l) when are the first replacements of the Buffalo SAR aircraft due to arrive; and (m) when will the entire new fleet be fully operational? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-257.

Q-258 — — With regard to the government's upcoming commemoration of historic military milestones: (a) which military battles and accomplishments will be commemorated in the next six years by the Department of National Defence (DND); (b) from which program and subprogram budgets will the monies required to fund the commemorations be derived; (c) which budgets will fund the Prime Minister's announced "cross-country consultations" regarding the upcoming commemoration of military milestones; (d) who will be consulted during these consultations; (e) will DND be expected to provide resources to non-military commemorations, such as the celebrations of Canada's 150th anniversary; (f) how much money does the government expect to spend on military commemorations in fiscal years (i) 2013-2014, (ii) 2014-2015, (iii) 2015-2016;

(g) from which program budgets will the necessary funds be taken in fiscal years (i) 2013-2014, (ii) 2014-2015, (iii) 2015-2016; (h) how much of the funding for these commemorations will come from Heritage Canada; (i) which personnel and equipment will DND be expected to provide for each of these commemorations; (j) which budgets will cover the cost of transport and deployment of the personnel and equipment for these commemorations; (k) will any funding for these commemorations come from the operations planning capacity, the Canadian Army budget, or the normal operations budget; (l) how much money has been given to fund "Operation Distinction" to date; (m) from which program budgets have funds been used for "Operation Distinction" to date; and (n) will any more funding be given to "Operation Distinction" over the next six years? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-258.

Q-259 — — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources advertising request for proposal, file No. cz025.23582-140223: (a) what is the total contract value; (b) broken down by individual expense and totaled for each country location, what (i) are the expected costs, (ii) is the medium of advertising, i.e. print, television, internet, radio, etc., (iii) is the language; (c) will the campaign promote renewable resources, and, if so, broken down by specific renewable resource, what percentage of the total budget will be allocated to promote each type of renewable resource; (d) what evidence was used to determine the need for this advertising campaign; (e) are there similar advertising campaigns planned or carried out by the government, and, if so, what is the (i) file number of each contract, (ii) purpose of each campaign, (iii) total cost for each contract; (f) broken down by individual organization, which targeted intense and sustained international and domestic public relations campaigns in particular does the statement of work refer to; (g) how does the government plan to monitor the effectiveness of the advertising campaign in the (i) short term, (ii) medium term, (iii) long term; (h) on what dates will the government publicly publish the results referred to in (g); and (i) what steps is the government taking to ensure it satisfies section 23 of the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-259.

Q-260 — — With regard to Canada Post: (a) how is a rural area defined for the purposes of post office services; (b) how is an urban area defined for the purposes of post office services; (c) are there classifications for locations other than rural and urban, and if so, what are they; (d) how many post offices in Canada have been closed since 2006, broken down by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) totaled by province and federal riding; (e) how many post offices in Canada have had their hours of operation reduced since 2006, broken down by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) total hours reduced by province and federal riding;

(f) how many post offices in Canada have seen a reduction in their total number of employees working inside the post office (such as postal clerks, mail handlers, postmasters, etc.) since 2006, broken down by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) totaled by province and federal riding; (g) how many post offices is Canada Post planning to close, listed and totaled by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) totaled by province and federal riding; (h) how many post offices is Canada Post planning to reduce service hours, broken down by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) totaled by province and federal riding; and (i) how many employees working inside post offices does Canada Post plan to terminate (such as postal clerks, mail handlers, postmasters, etc.), broken down by (i) address, (ii) year, (iii) urban, rural, or other, (iv) province, (v) federal riding, (vi) totaled by province and federal riding? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-260.

Q-262 — — With regard to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board’s (C-NLOPB) oversight of operator activity for legislative and regulatory compliance in areas of safety, environmental protection, resource management and industrial benefits: (a) what steps has the government taken to address the issue of safety, as defined by Justice Robert Wells on page 303 of the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry Report, with regard to (i) prevention of injury, (ii) prevention of loss of life, (iii) the protection of the environment; (b) what steps is the government planning to take to address (i) prevention of injury, (ii) prevention of loss of life, (iii) the protection of the environment; (c) is the government’s definition of safety consistent with Justice Wells’ definition of safety on page 303 of his report, and if not, what is the reason for the discrepancy;

(d) is it the government’s policy to address recommendation 29 of the Report and create an independent safety regulator, and, if so, for what reasons; (e) has the government received any correspondence from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador supporting recommendation 29 of the Report, and if so, (i) what was the nature of this correspondence, (ii) what was the government’s response to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador; (f) does the C-NLOPB require all companies to report adrift oil rigs; (g) on what date was the C-NLOPB first informed that the drilling rig GSF Grand Banks was adrift; and (h) did the C-NLOPB notify the public that the drilling rig GSF Grand Banks was adrift, (i) why or why not, (ii) on what date was the public notified, (iii) was there any delay between the first discovery of the adrift oil rig by the C-NLOPB and the disclosure to the public? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-262.

Q-265 — — With regard to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's joint review panel for Enbridge Northern Gateway: (a) what is the total cost of the joint review panel; (b) what is the total cost by standard object for each year of the joint review panel; and (c) what is the spending by each year for travel? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-265.

Q-266 — — With regard to the consolidation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' library system, for each of the following locations, (i) the St. Andrews Biological Station, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, (ii) the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, (iii) the Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia, (iv) the Pacific Region Headquarters Library, Vancouver, British Columbia, (v) the Eric Marshall Aquatic Research Library, Winnipeg, Manitoba, (vi) the Maurice Lamontagne Institute Library, Mont-Joli, Quebec, (vii) the Mère Juliette Library of the Gulf Fisheries Centre, Moncton, New Brunswick: (a) was the general public given the opportunity to salvage or obtain library materials which would otherwise have been discarded during the consolidation process; (b) if so, through what media or methods, and when was this opportunity communicated to the public; and (c) on what dates and times did the public, or will the public, have that opportunity? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-266.

Q-267 — — With regard to the practice of confining laying hens to battery cages, and with particular reference to the fact that resolutions have been passed by Egg Farmers of Canada and the provincial egg boards of Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec to impose a moratorium on the construction of new battery cage facilities by December 31, 2014, with other egg-producing provinces currently considering the same resolution: (a) is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food working with industry to ensure that the use of these intensive confinement systems is phased out on Canadian farms; (b) will the Minister provide concrete support and incentives for an ambitious timeline for the phase-out of the use of battery cage facilities across Canada; (c) will the Minister provide immediate funding to the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) to provide them with the short-term funds they need to complete the review of the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Laying Hens; and (d) will the Minister commit to working with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to develop an on-farm inspection program to verify the welfare standards established in the NFACC Codes of Practice? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-267.

Q-269 — — With regard to government funding for the company PurGenesis: (a) has PurGenesis given the government a financial report for fiscal years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 or any other fiscal year; (b) has PurGenesis given the government an activity report for fiscal years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 or any other fiscal year; (c) has the government funded any other activities by PurGenesis since May 2, 2011; (d) between 2008 and the present, has the government received any market research from PurGenesis; (e) between 2008 and the present, has PurGenesis given the government any technological opinions to validate product feasibility; (f) between 2008 and the present, has PurGenesis given the government any expert opinions to validate patentable products; and (g) between 2008 and the present, has PurGenesis given the government any expert recommendations, studies or analyses? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-269.

Q-270 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Public Works and Government Services Canada and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what is the annual funding given to administer (i) Cod Sentinel Survey, (ii) the Fisheries Science Collaborative Program, (iii) Post-Season Snow Crab Pot Surveys, (iv) Aquaculture Impact on Lobsters and Crab in Connaigre Bay, (v) Eastport Lobster Marine Protected Area; and (b) how many years have these agreements been in place? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-270.

Q-276 — — With regard to government funding, providing the dollar amount and the specific purpose, broken down by year from 2000 to the present: (a) how much government funding has been directed to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; and (b) how much government funding has been directed to the Palestinian Authority? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-276.

Q-278 — — With regard to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy: (a) what was the total planned budget for fiscal year 2012-2013, broken down by (i) each province and territory, (ii) each of the 61 designated communities, (iii) each funding program, including designated communities, rural and remote homelessness, Aboriginal homelessness, federal horizontal pilot project, homelessness knowledge development, and national homelessness information system; (b) what is the total planned budget for fiscal year 2013-2014, broken down by (i) each province and territory, (ii) each of the 61 designated communities, (iii) each funding program, including designated communities, rural and remote homelessness, Aboriginal homelessness, federal horizontal pilot project, homelessness knowledge development, and national homelessness information system; and (c) what was the actual spending for fiscal year 2012-2013, broken down by (i) each province and territory, (ii) each of the 61 designated communities, (iii) each funding program, including designated communities, rural and remote homelessness, Aboriginal homelessness, federal horizontal pilot project, homelessness knowledge development, and national homelessness information system? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-278.

Q-279 — — With regard to the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014: (a) what is the total amount of funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) agency; and (b) what agency was responsible for allocating this funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-279.

Q-280 — — With regard to the Building Canada Fund, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014: (a) what is the total amount of funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) agency; and (b) what agency was responsible for allocating this funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-280.

Q-281 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Val d’Or regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

(g) what is the complete list of meetings between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (h) what is the complete list of meetings between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; (i) what is the complete list of meetings between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year; (j) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices; (k) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years;

(l) in which month of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices implemented; (m) what is the complete list of phone communications between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (n) what is the complete list of phone communications between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; (o) what is the complete list of phone communications between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year; (p) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices;

(q) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (r) in which month of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices implemented; (s) what is the complete list of email communications between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (t) what is the complete list of email communications between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; and (u) what is the complete list of email communications between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-281.

Q-282 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Sherbrooke regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-283 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Montreal regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-284 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Trois-Rivières regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-285 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Québec regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-286 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Alma regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-287 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Longueuil regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-288 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Laval office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-289 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Gaspé regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-290 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Rimouski regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-291 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Drummondville regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-292 — — With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Sept-îles regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented;

Q-294 — — With regard to government funding allocated within the constituency of Laurentides–Labelle for each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2013-2014: (a) what is the total amount of funding by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) other government entity, (iv) program; and (b) how many jobs have been created as a direct result of this funding, including both (i) full-time jobs, (ii) part-time jobs? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-294.

Q-295 — — With regard to Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: (a) what is the current policy of the government, particularly the Department of Justice, about the use or invocation of Section 33; and (b) since 2006, how many times has the government directed, suggested, contemplated or requested an analysis, examination or consideration from departmental officials within the Department of Justice, the Privy Council Office, or any government department, about the possible use of Section 33? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-295.

Q-296 — — With regard to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement and the associated Independent Assessment Process: (a) how much money did the government spend in total, to date, on the recent Ontario Superior Court case regarding the government's refusal to disclose police and court evidence of abuse at St. Anne's Residential School to the Independent Assessment Process, (i) how much money is the government projecting to spend, including court penalties, on this court case in the future, (ii) with regard to money spent on this court case, including court penalties, from what budget and what department is this money coming; and (b) for the Independent Assessment Process, for each year from 2006 to 2013, (i) what is the number of applicants, (ii) what is the number of settled cases, (iii) what is the average number of days taken to settle each case, (iv) what is the number of personnel adjudicating cases, (v) what is the average caseload per adjudicator? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-296.

Business of Supply

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Scott (Toronto—Danforth), seconded by Ms. Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent), in relation to the Business of Supply.

The debate continued.

At 6:15 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), the Speaker interrupted the proceedings.

The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 80 -- Vote n^o 80)
YEAS: 131, NAYS: 149
YEAS -- POUR Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Fortin Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer Jacob Jones Julian Karygiannis Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Perreault Plamondon Quach Rafferty Rankin Rathgeber Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Toone Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote Total: -- 131
NAYS -- CONTRE Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Norlock O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer Total: -- 149
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun

Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), moved, — That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, be concurred in.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 81 -- Vote n^o 81)
YEAS: 150, NAYS: 129
YEAS -- POUR Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Norlock O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Rajotte Rathgeber Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer Total: -- 150
NAYS -- CONTRE Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Fortin Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer Jacob Jones Julian Karygiannis Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Perreault Plamondon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Toone Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote Total: -- 129
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun

Pursuant to Standing Orders 81(21) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), Bill C-28, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014, was read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 82 -- Vote n^o 82)
YEAS: 150, NAYS: 130
YEAS — POUR Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Norlock O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Rajotte Rathgeber Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer Total: -- 150
NAYS — CONTRE Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Fortin Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer Jacob Jones Julian Karygiannis Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Perreault Plamondon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Toone Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote Total: -- 130
PAIRED — PAIRÉS Nil — Aucun
Accordingly, Bill C-28, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014, was read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.

The Committee considered the Bill and reported it without amendment.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(12), Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), moved, — That the Bill be concurred in at report stage.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 83 -- Vote n^o 83)
YEAS: 150, NAYS: 130 (See list under Division No. 82)
Accordingly, the Bill was concurred in at report stage.

Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), moved, — That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 84 -- Vote n^o 84)
YEAS: 150, NAYS: 130 (See list under Division No. 82)
Accordingly, the Bill was read the third time and passed.

Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), moved, — That this House do concur in Interim Supply as follows:

That a sum not exceeding $24,821,234,862.66 being composed of:

(1) three twelfths ($15,732,773,392.25) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Proposed Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015 which were laid upon the Table on Thursday, February 27, 2014, except for those items below:

(2) eleven twelfths of the total of the amount of Atomic Engergy of Canada Limited Vote 1, Office of Infrastructure of Canada Vote 1 and Treasury Board Secretariat Vote 5 (Schedule 1.1), of the said Estimates, $783,010,944.83;

(3) nine twelfths of the total of the amount of Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission Vote 1 and The Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc. Vote 1 (Schedule 1.2), of the said Estimates, $111,172,914.00;

(4) eight twelfths of the total of the amount of Justice Vote 1 (Schedule 1.3), of the said Estimates, $157,907,386.00;

(5) seven twelfths of the total of the amount of Canada Council for the Arts Vote 1, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Vote 1, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Vote 1, Canadian Polar Commission Vote 1, Transport Vote 5 and Treasury Board Secretariat Vote 1 (Schedule 1.4), of the said Estimates, $351,200,001.25;

(6) six twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Vote 1, Canadian Grain Commission Vote 1, Natural Resources Vote 5, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee Vote 1, Statistics Canada Vote 1 and VIA Rail Canada Inc. Vote 1 (Schedule 1.5), of the said Estimates, $728,128,527.00;

(7) five twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Food Inspection Agency Vote 1, Canadian Space Agency Vote 10, Employment and Social Development Vote 5, Finance Vote 5, National Arts Centre Corporation Vote 1, National Energy Board Vote 1, Public Health Agency of Canada Votes 1 and 10 and Transport Vote 10 (Schedule 1.6), of the said Estimates, $1,318,467,241.68;

(8) four twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Vote 1, Canadian Space Agency Vote 5, Citizenship and Immigration Vote 5, Health Vote 10, House of Commons Vote 1, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 1 and 10, Industry Votes 1, 5 and 10, Library of Parliament Vote 1, National Battlefields Commission Vote 1, National Film Board Vote 1, Natural Resources Vote 1, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Vote 5, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Vote 1, Public Service Commision Vote 1, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Vote 1 and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Vote 5 (Schedule 1.7), of the said Estimates, $5,638,574,455.65;

be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 85 -- Vote n^o 85)
YEAS: 150, NAYS: 130
YEAS -- POUR Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Norlock O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Rajotte Rathgeber Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer Total: -- 150
NAYS -- CONTRE Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Fortin Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer Jacob Jones Julian Karygiannis Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Perreault Plamondon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Toone Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote Total: -- 130
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun

Pursuant to Standing Orders 81(21) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), Bill C-29, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2015, was read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), moved, — That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 86 -- Vote n^o 86)
YEAS: 150, NAYS: 130 (See list under Division No. 85)
Accordingly, Bill C-29, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending march 31, 2015, was read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.

The Committee considered the Bill and reported it without amendment.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(12), Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), moved, — That the Bill be concurred in at report stage.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 87 -- Vote n^o 87)
YEAS: 150, NAYS: 130 (See list under Division No. 85)
Accordingly, the Bill was concurred in at report stage.

Mr. Clement (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Mr. Oliver (Minister of Finance), moved, — That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 88 -- Vote n^o 88)
YEAS: 150, NAYS: 130 (See list under Division No. 85)
Accordingly, the Bill was read the third time and passed.

Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were deemed laid upon the Table on Wednesday, March 19, 2014:

— by — Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Canada National Parks Act together with a Report to Parliament - Ukkusiksalik National Park of Canada, pursuant to the Canada National Parks Act, S.C. 2000, c. 32, sbs. 7(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-1032-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development)

— by — Report by Federal Authorities with Obligations under Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (Copyright Board of Canada) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52 "71(2)". — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-1072-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development)

— by — Report by Federal Authorities with Obligations under Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (Statistics Canada) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52 "71(2)". — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-1072-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development)

— by — Reports by Federal Authorities with Obligations under Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (Canadian Space Agency) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52 "71(2)". — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-1072-04. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development)

— by — Reports by Federal Authorities with Obligations under Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (Registry of the Competition Tribunal) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52 "71(2)". — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-1072-05. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development)

— by — Reports by Federal Authorities with Obligations under Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (Standards Council of Canada) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52 "71(2)". — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-1072-06. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development)

— by — Report of the Judge Advocate General to the Minister of National Defence on the administration of military justice in the Canadian Forces for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, pursuant to the National Defence Act, R.S. 1985, c. N-5, s. 9.3(3) . — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-735-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence)

— by — Copy of Order in Council P.C. 2014-274 dated March 7, 2014, concerning the Order Imposing Measures to Address the Extraordinary Disruption to the National Transportation System in Relation to Grain Movement, pursuant to the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10, sbs. 47(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-562-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Interim Order No. 2 Respecting Flights to Russia (P.C. 2014-171), dated February 18, 2014, pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, R.S. 1985, c. A-2, sbs. 6.41(5) and (6). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-926-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Summary of the Corporate Plan for 2014-2018 of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-842-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2014-2018 and the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2014 of the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-843-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2014-2018 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2014 of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-844-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

— by — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2014-2018 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2014 of the Pacific Pilotage Authority, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-845-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

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

— Nos. 412-0674, 412-0680, 412-0686, 412-1550 to 412-1557, 412-1609 and 412-1641 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-7-06;

— No. 412-0682 concerning port authorities. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-99-01;

— Nos. 412-0683, 412-0689, 412-1403, 412-1419, 412-1446 and 412-1722 concerning the protection of the environment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-2-05;

— Nos. 412-0692, 412-1410, 412-1418, 412-1445, 412-1474, 412-1475, 412-1608, 412-1670, 412-1690 to 412-1701, 412-1709, 412-1718, 412-1720, 412-1724, 412-1727, 412-1753, 412-1796, 412-1932, 412-1942, 412-1965, 412-1972 and 412-1997 concerning the Canada Post Corporation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-1-06;

— Nos. 412-1069 to 412-1095 concerning horse meat. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-59-03;

— No. 412-1099 concerning foreign aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-34-05;

— Nos. 412-1392 to 412-1395 concerning the tax system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-98-02;

— Nos. 412-1401, 412-1422, 412-1559, 412-1569, 412-1667, 412-1708 and 412-1750 concerning certain diseases. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-33-04;

— Nos. 412-1412, 412-1655 and 412-1953 concerning climate change. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-50-05;

— Nos. 412-1417, 412-1614 and 412-1707 concerning navigable waters. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-24-07;

— Nos. 412-1424, 412-1592 and 412-1930 concerning the democratic process. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-13-05;

— Nos. 412-1425, 412-1442, 412-1472, 412-1601, 412-1620, 412-1626, 412-1628 and 412-1668 concerning national parks. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-37-03;

— Nos. 412-1427 and 412-1428 concerning asbestos. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-44-02;

— Nos. 412-1432 to 412-1441 concerning the pension system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-94-02;

— No. 412-1444 concerning funding aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-22-08;

— Nos. 412-1492 to 412-1515 concerning transportation. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-35-05;

— Nos. 412-1524, 412-1540, 412-1562 to 412-1564, 412-1566, 412-1570, 412-1573, 412-1577, 412-1602, 412-1621, 412-1625, 412-1631, 412-1638, 412-1642, 412-1713, 412-1714, 412-1752, 412-1768, 412-1773, 412-1774, 412-1838, 412-1845, 412-1933, 412-1938 and 412-1996 concerning VIA Rail. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-60-05;

— No. 412-1534 concerning the fur industry. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-52-03;

— Nos. 412-1538, 412-1541, 412-1571, 412-1596 to 412-1600 and 412-1659 concerning the Criminal Code of Canada. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-17-07;

— Nos. 412-1542 to 412-1544, 412-1603 and 412-1604 concerning sex selection. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-46-09;

— No. 412-1561 concerning abortion. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-53-03;

— Nos. 412-1565, 412-1595, 412-1674, 412-1704, 412-1772, 412-1793, 412-1940, 412-1967 and 412-1989 concerning the electoral system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-12-05;

— No. 412-1634 concerning prostitution. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-47-05;

— No. 412-1657 concerning advertising. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-89-02;

— Nos. 412-1746 and 412-1776 concerning Old Age Security benefits. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-31-08.

Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House

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

— by — Copy of the Regulations amending the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials (Ukraine) Regulations (P.C. 2014-198), pursuant to the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, S.C. 2011, c. 10, s. 7. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-1047-02. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development)

— by — Summary of the Corporate Plan for 2014-2018 of Export Development Canada, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-412-851-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade)

— by — Report on the administration and enforcement of the fish habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Fisheries Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-14, sbs. 42.1(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-325-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans)

Petitions Filed with the Clerk of the House

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

— by , one concerning sexual orientation (No. 412-2027);

— by , three concerning sexual orientation (Nos. 412-2028 to 412-2030).

Adjournment Proceedings

At 7:15 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 38(1), the question “That this House do now adjourn” was deemed to have been proposed.

After debate, the question was deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, at 7:44 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).