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


Friday, May 16, 2014 (No. 88)

Questions

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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.

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

Q-427² — March 31, 2014 — — With regard to Economic Action Plan 2012's promise of proactive enrolment in Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS): (a) what is the definition of (i) proactive enrolment, (ii) automatic enrolment; (b) what exact steps will Canadians have to take to receive each GIS and OAS once (i) automatic enrolment is fully implemented, (ii) any proactive enrolment is fully implemented; (c) for each benefit, will proactive enrolment be completed by 2015 and, if not, what is the timeline; (d) is the GIS included in the (i) automatic enrolment initiative, (ii) any proactive enrolment imitative; (e) what are the phases of (i) the automatic enrolment initiative, with a detailed description of each phase, (ii) any proactive enrolment initiatives, with a detailed description of each phase; (f) is information publically available about (i) the automatic enrolment initiative, (ii) any proactive enrolment initiatives; (g) for each benefit, will individuals be notified if they are not eligible for (i) automatic enrolment, (ii) proactive enrolment; (h) for each benefit, what is the eligibility criteria for automatic or proactive enrolment; and (i) for each benefit, as of March 31, 2014, how many individuals have been (i) automatically enrolled, (ii) proactively enrolled?

Q-429² — March 31, 2014 — — With regard to Canadian Defence Advisor, Canadian Defence Attaché and Canadian Defence Liaison hospitality events requiring ministerial approval from January 1, 2012 to the present: for each event, (a) what was the total departmental incremental cost; (b) what was the cost for each line item in the Summary of Event Cost on the Event/Hospitality Request Form; (c) what was the total number of participants; (d) what was the guest list; e) what was the location; (f) what was the stated activity; (g) what were the declared reasons for higher level approval; (h) what was the maximum cost per person approved; (i) what was the number of guests listed; (j) what were the types of hospitality expenses requested; (k) what were the estimated costs for each type of hospitality expense listed; (l) what was the date; and (m) what was the title, purpose and description?

Q-430² — March 31, 2014 — — With regard to government spending in the constituency of Sudbury: since 2011-2012 up to and including the current fiscal year, what is the total amount of funding allocated by the government within the constituency, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) initiative, (iv) amount?

Q-431² — March 31, 2014 — — With regard to government-created mobile applications for each fiscal year since 2008-2009 up to and including the current fiscal year: for each application, broken down by department and individual project, (a) what is the total number of downloads; and (b) what is the total number of active users?

Q-432² — March 31, 2014 — — With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

Q-436² — April 1, 2014 — — With regard to costs and expenses related to appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada: (a) what accounts for the difference in costs between appointment processes; (b) who and what entities submit costs for reimbursement; (c) are any costs rejected for reimbursement and, if so, (i) on what basis, (ii) who makes the determination, (iii) what criteria are used in making the determination; (d) what reimbursement requests were rejected for the appointment processes of (i) Justice M. Rothstein, (ii) Justice T. Cromwell, (iii) Justice M. Moldaver and Justice A. Karakatsanis, (iv) Justice R. Wager, (v) Justice M. Nadon; (e) in the breakdown of appointment process costs provided in the answer to Q-239, how are the following categories defined (i) Travel and Telecommunications, (ii) Information and Printing Services, (iii) Legal Services, (iv) Translation and Professional Services, (v) Rentals, (vi) Miscellaneous Supplies, (vii) Acquisition of Machinery and Equipment; (f) what types of costs are included under the headings (i) Travel and Telecommunications, (ii) Information and Printing Services, (iii) Legal Services, (iv) Translation and Professional Services, (v) Rentals, (vi) Miscellaneous Supplies, (vii) Acquisition of Machinery and Equipment; (g) who bears the costs incurred in the following categories and, if costs are shared, with which entity or entities are they shared: (i) Travel and Telecommunications, (ii) Information and Printing Services, (iii) Legal Services, (iv) Translation and Professional Services, (v) Rentals, (vi) Miscellaneous Supplies, (vii) Acquisition of Machinery and Equipment; (h) why are there no “Information and Printing” costs associated with Justice Cromwell’s appointment; (i) what was the maximum budget set for the appointment processes reported in the government’s answer to written question Q-239; (j) what accounts for the greater costs of “Translation and Professional Services” for the appointment of Justice Wagner relative to the reported costs provided in the government’s answer to written question Q-239 for other Justices; (k) what accounts for the great increase in rentals costs for “Rentals” associated with the appointment of Mr. Justice Wagner compared to other Justices reported in the answer to Q-239; (l) what ensures transparency with respect to the costs incurred in judicial appointments; (m) who assess the reasonableness of costs incurred, and how; (n) who assesses the legitimacy of expenses, and how; (o) are receipts that are related to the appointments process consultable and, if so, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) under what circumstances; (p) who ultimately approves the expenses and what is the role of Treasury Board in this regard, if any; and (q) is there a maximum budget set for an appointment process and, if so, (i) what is it, (ii) how and when was it determined?

Q-437² — April 1, 2014 — — With regard to the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon: (a) who did what and when prior to the Selection Panel being convened; (b) who determined the process to be followed with respect to the most recent appointment process to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC); (c) was the process for Justice Wagner designed with the departure of Justice Fish a year later in mind; (d) was the process for Justice Nadon designed with the forthcoming departure of Justice LeBel in mind; (e) in the breakdown of appointment process costs provided in the answer to Q-239, what accounts for the "Acquisition of Machinery and Equipment" cost associated with the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon; (f) was there a competitive bidding process with respect to the goods and services in (a); (g) what accounts for the greater cost of "Legal Services" for the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon relative to the reported costs provided in the answer to Q-239 for other Justices; (h) are the costs for the legal opinions of Justices Binnie and Charron included in the "Legal Services" heading for the appointment process of Justice Marc Nadon reported in the answer to Q-239; (i) if the answer to (f) is no, under what heading are these opinion costs found and, if not reported in the answer to Q-239, where are they reported; (j) were the legal opinions of any Quebec jurists explicitly sought with respect to the eligibility of Justice Marc Nadon and, if so, (i) whose opinions were sought, (ii) on what date, (iii) at what cost; (k) were the legal opinions of any Quebec jurists explicitly sought with respect to the eligibility of a federal judge to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC and, if so, (i) whose opinions were sought, (ii) on what date, (iii) at what cost; (l) how long will the materials relative to Justice Nadon's appointment remain on the website for the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada; (m) when were these materials first posted; (n) under what guidelines will they be removed; (o) how was the decision to seek outside legal advice relative to Justice Nadon's eligibility made, (i) by whom, (ii) on what dates, (iii) why; (p) did the Department of Justice render an internal opinion as to the eligibility of Justice Nadon to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC; (q) what assessment or evaluation of the Nadon nomination has the government undertaken to improve the process for the next appointment; (r) what assessment, evaluation, or review of the Nadon nomination will the government undertake so as to learn from it; (s) with respect to the statement of the Minister reported by CBC on March 24, 2014, that "we'll examine our options as we ensure that the Supreme Court has its full complement" what specific options were considered by the government; (t) did the government consider re-naming Justice Nadon after the decision in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 and, if not, why did the Minister not rule this out when asked subsequent to the ruling's release; (u) on what specific dates did the Selection Panel engage in consultations relative to the process that resulted in the nomination of Justice Nadon; (v) did any consultations or meetings of the Selection Panel occur after July 15, 2013; (w) were any outside lawyers consulted on the amendments made to the Supreme Court Act during the nomination of Justice Marc Nadon; (x) was Quebec consulted on the amendments made to the Supreme Court Act during the nomination of Justice Marc Nadon; (y) was the Barreau du Quebec consulted on the amendments made to the Supreme Court Act during the nomination of Justice Marc Nadon; (z) were any documents, presentations, or memos prepared for ministers or their staff, from April 1, 2013 to present regarding Justice Marc Nadon and, if so, what are (i) the dates, (ii) the titles or subject-matters, (iii) the department, commission, or agency's internal tracking number; (aa) with respect to the Minister's appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Thursday, November 21, 2013, wherein he deferred to Ms. Laurie Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice) on a question regarding consultations in the matter of changes to the Supreme Court Act and wherein she said "In this particular case, I'm not aware that there were any consultations with the Barreau du Québec. It's not unusual for the government to consult in circumstances such as this, though", (i) were there any consultations with the Barreau du Quebec and, if so, on what dates, (ii) was the Minister aware personally of consultations, (iii) what role would the Minister personally play in such consultations in 'usual' circumstances, (iv) if there were no consultations, why were none held, (v) were any consultations requested by the government in this regard; (bb) with respect to the various costs reported in the response to Q-74 related to Ms. Louise Charron, Mr. Ian Binnie and Professor Peter Hogg, what accounts for the difference in these costs; (cc) were the three named individuals asked the same total number of questions and with the same exact wording; (dd) in addition to these individuals referenced in part (z), who else was asked and on what date with respect to the question of the eligibility of a federal judge to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC; (ee) with respect to the statement of the Minister of Justice in the House on October 17, 2013, "The eligibility and the opinion that we have received from Mr. Justice Ian Binnie, which has also been endorsed by Supreme Court Justice Louise Charron, as well as a noted constitutional expert Peter Hogg, is very clear", (i) when were Justice Charron and Professor Hogg provided the opinion for Justice Binnie, (ii) how long did they have to review it before reporting to the government; (ff) with respect to the statement of the Minister of Justice before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on November 21, 2013, that "legal opinion prepared by respected former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie which [...] was supported by his former colleague, the Honourable Louise Charron, as well as by noted constitutional expert, Professor Peter Hogg", (i) did the Minister use "supported" to mean "endorsed", (ii) did the Minister mean that all conclusions were agreed in wholeheartedly by those cited; (gg) with respect to the Minister's comments before the Ad Hoc Committee on the Appointment of SCC Justices that "I would add that this opinion was reviewed by several eminently qualified individuals, including the Honourable Louise Charron as a former judge of the Supreme Court of Canada herself. The opinion was also reviewed by Professor Peter Hogg, a recognized constitutional expert and author. Both of them expressed unequivocal support for Mr. Justice Binnie's conclusions", is "several" used to mean "more than two but not many" as defined by the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2 ed.) and (i) if so, who other than Justice Charron and Prof. Hogg is included in the class of "eminently qualified individuals" who reviewed this opinion, (ii) if not, in what sense was the word "several" used in this context and to convey what; (hh) was Justice Binnie informed that his opinion would be made public and, if so, was this part of the arrangement the government made with him; (ii) can Justice Charron publicly release her opinion that was rendered to the government and, if not, why not; (jj) can Professor Hogg publicly release his opinion that was rendered to the government and, if not, why not; (kk) will the government release the opinions of Justice Charron and Prof. Hogg and, if not, why not; (ll) how did the government decide from whom to seek opinions; (mm) how did the government determine whose opinions to release; (nn) other than the Minister of Justice, who in the Department of Justice, in the Prime Minister's Office, and in the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada reviewed the Charron and Hogg opinions; (oo) where are the Charron and Hogg opinions currently stored, who has access to them, and what is the plan for retention; (pp) concerning the Selection Panel that considered Justice Marc Nadon’s candidacy, (i) how were members of the Panel chosen, (ii) what qualifications were sought, (iii) how did each of the members of the Panel meet the qualifications in (ii), (iv) what measures are in place to ensure that Aboriginal candidates are considered in the work of the Panel; (qq) who was the Executive Director of the SCC Selection Committee for this process and how was this person selected; (rr) what protections were in place to ensure that members of the Panel elevated mid-summer to Cabinet were not influenced by their Cabinet role in the work of the Panel; (ss) with respect to the Prime Minister’s statement regarding Justice Nadon in the House on April 1, 2014, that “pendant les consultations, tous les partis de la Chambre étaient d'accord avec l'idée qu'on pouvait nommer un Québécois de la Cour fédérale à la Cour suprême”, (i) to what consultations is the Prime Minister referring, (ii) was the Prime Minister part of these consultations and if so in what capacity, (iii) if the Prime Minister was not part of these consultations, by what means was he informed of their contents, (iv) to what extent are these consultations public, (v) if these consultations were public, in what manner can records of them be accessed, (vi) if these consultations were not public, are their contents protected by any privilege or confidentiality agreement and if so, what are the consequences for any individual breaking consultation confidentiality, if any, (vii) on what basis was this statement made, (viii) how can a party involved in these consultations express its disagreement “avec l'idée qu'on pouvait nommer un Québécois de la Cour fédérale à la Cour supreme”, (ix) how can a disagreement, such as the Prime Minister suggests did not occur, be made public within the ordinary course of consultations; and (tt) with respect to the Prime Minister’s statement in the House on April 1, 2014, that “Évidemment, c'est une grande surprise de découvrir qu'il y a une règle tout à fait différente pour le Québec que pour le reste du Canada”, (i) when was the Prime Minister first informed that there exists a different rule for the appointment of judges from Quebec vis-a-vis the rest of Canada to the Supreme Court of Canada, (ii) did the Prime Minister personally solicit, receive, and review legal advice on this point within the context of the Marc Nadon appointment, (iii) what steps were taken to mitigate any such surprises that might arise during the appointment process?

Q-438² — April 1, 2014 — — With regard to Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Disability benefit appeals: (a) how many appeals were made to the CPP Review Tribunal between 2004 and 2013, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) appeals granted by the Department before a hearing was held, (vii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (viii) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (ix) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (x) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xi) appeals which were heard within 3 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xii) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiii) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 12 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which took more than 12 months to be heard; (b) how many hearings were held by the CPP Review Tribunal each year from 2004 to 2013, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (c) how many appeals were made to the Pension Appeals Board between 2004 and 2013, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals made by clients, (v) appeals made by the Department, (vi) appeals resulting in an overturn of the CPP Review Tribunal’s decision, (vii) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the CPP Review Tribunal’s decision, (viii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (ix) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (x) appeals which were heard within 3 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xi) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xii) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiii) appeals which were heard within 12 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 18 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which took more than 18 months after receipt of appeal notice to be heard; (d) how many hearings were held by the Pension Appeals Board in each year from 2004 to 2013, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (e) how many requests for reconsideration were made to the Department in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) requests resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (v) requests not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) reviews which took place within 30 days of receipt of the request, (vii) reviews which took place within 60 days of receipt of the request, (viii) reviews which took more than 60 days to complete; (f) how many people requesting a reconsideration from the Department and requesting their case file from the Department received their case file (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after making the request; (g) how many people requesting a reconsideration from the Department and requesting their case file from the Department were refused their case file, broken down by province; (h) how many applicants requesting a reconsideration by the Department were notified by phone of the outcome of their request and how many were notified by letter; (i) how many appeals were made to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal regarding CPPD Benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) appeals resulting in a summary dismissal, (v) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) appeals not resulting in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing was held, (viii) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (ix) appeals which were decided on the record, (x) appeals which were heard in writing, (xi) appeals which were heard over the phone, (xii) appeals which were heard in person, (xiii) appeals for which travel costs were granted to the appellant, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvi) appeals which were heard within 90 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which were heard within 4 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xviii) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xix) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xx) appeals which took more than 9 months to be heard; (j) in how many cases was the Department informed by the Social Security Tribunal of a notice of appeal (i) within 7 days of receiving the notice, (ii) within 14 days of receiving the notice, (iii) within 21 days of receiving the notice, (iv) within 30 days of receiving the notice, (v) more than 30 days after receiving the notice; (k) how many hearings were held by the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (l) how many cases are currently waiting to be heard by the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal; (m) how many legacy cases originally filed with the CPP Review Tribunal are still waiting to be heard; (n) how many hearings regarding legacy cases originally filed with the CPP Review Tribunal did the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal hold in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (o) how many Applications to Rescind or Amend have been made to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) applications that were successful, (iv) applications that were refused, (v) applications that resulted in an overturn of the Department’s original decision, (vi) applications that did not result in an overturn of the Department’s original decision; (p) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal received their case file from the Department (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after making the request; (q) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal were refused their case file by the Department, broken down by province; (r) how many people appealing to the Income Security Section of the Social Security Tribunal were sent an acknowledgement of receipt of their notice of appeal (i) within 30 days of making the request, (ii) within 60 days of making the request, (iii) within 90 days of making the request, (iv) more than 90 days after notice was sent; (s) how many appeals were made to the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal regarding CPP Disability benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) region, (iv) cases where leave is not granted to appeal, (v) appeals filed by the Department, (vi) appeals resulting in an overturn of the Income Security Section’s decision, (vii) cases not resulting in an overturn of the Income Security Section’s decision, (viii) appeals withdrawn before a hearing is held, (ix) appeals withdrawn at hearing, (x) appeals which were decided on the record, (xi) appeals which were heard over the phone, (xii) appeals which were heard in person, (xiii) appeals for which travel costs were granted to the appellant, (xiv) appeals which were heard within 30 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xv) appeals which were heard within 60 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvi) appeals which were heard within 90 days of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which were heard within 6 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xviii) appeals which were heard within 9 months of receipt of appeal notice, (xvii) appeals which took more than 9 months to be heard; (t) how many hearings were held by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal regarding CPP Disability benefits in 2013-2014, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (u) how many cases are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal; (v) how many hearings regarding legacy cases originally filed with the CPP Review Tribunal did the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal hear, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (w) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about communications sent to an appellant rather than to a third-party where requested; (x) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about logistic problems with hearings held by teleconference; (y) how many complaints has the Social Security Tribunal received about the Notice of Readiness system; and (z) how many requests for postponement has the Social Security Tribunal received after a Notice of Readiness has been filed by the appellant?

Q-439² — April 1, 2014 — — With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Justice Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

Q-440² — April 1, 2014 — — With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

Q-442² — April 1, 2014 — — With regard to the Building Canada Fund 2007-2014: (a) what was the final application deadline in each province and territory for the (i) Major Infrastructure Component, (ii) Communities Component; (b) what project applications were not approved due to (i) lack of funding, (ii) failure to meet the eligibility criteria, (iii) all other reasons; (c) what was the last project to receive approval in each province and territory; (d) when did the last project receive approval in each province and territory; (e) what projects as of March 31, 2013 have contribution agreements in place to receive funding in future years; (f) how much funding is allocated to each of those projects; and (g) in what year or years is each project expected to receive its funding?

Q-443² — April 1, 2014 — — With regard to the Youth Employment Strategy: (a) what are the sub-program and sub-sub-program activities within the program architecture; (b) how much was expended annually by each sub-program and sub-sub-program since 2006-2007; (c) how many clients were served annually by each sub-program and sub-sub-program since 2006-2007; and (d) how many applications were not approved in each fiscal year since 2006-2007 (i) due to lack of funding, (ii) due to applicant not meeting the eligibility criteria?

Q-445² — April 1, 2014 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and more specifically the decision to extend the cod fishery in NAFO division 3Ps: (a) what requests were received by DFO from industry, including but not limited to processors, unions, licensed harvesters and provincial governments, to support an extension to the 2014 closing date including (i) name, (ii) how the support was communicated, (iii) date the support was received, (iv) rationale provided to support an extension; and (b) what advice was requested and received to support or argue the extension from within DFO, including (i) name, (ii) position, (iii) rationale to support or oppose?

Q-446² — April 1, 2014 — — With regard to the Department of International Trade's Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and the subsequent creation of a Federal-Provincial fund of $400 million to support industry enhancements in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL): (a) what are the terms, in draft or complete, of any agreement between the government and the government of NL pertaining to this fund, including but not limited to, management provisions, project parameters, annual funding levels and potential project approval process; (b) how will this funding be used to play a key role in assuring the success of seafood harvesters and processors in NL; (c) what details of this agreement was completed on or before October 29, 2013; and (d) who were the negotiating representatives participating from the government and the government of NL pertaining to this funding arrangement?

Q-448² — April 2, 2014 — — With regard to judicial appointments from the province of Quebec: (a) what steps is the government taking to ensure Quebec has full representation on the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC); (b) by when will a Justice to replace Justice Fish assume his or her seat on the SCC and by what process will this vacancy be filled; (c) in what ways is the decision in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 being studied and analyzed by the government, and what impact is it expected to have on future judicial appointments from Quebec; (d) will the government seek constitutional amendment to allow for the appointment of judges from the federal courts to the Quebec seats on the SCC and, if so, how does the government plan to proceed; (e) does the government anticipate that the decision in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 will have any impact on its ability to fill vacancies from Quebec in the federal courts and, if so, how; (f) in what ways will the government seek (i) to ensure civil law expertise and the representation of Quebec’s legal traditions and social values on the Court, (ii) to enhance the confidence of Quebec in the Court in the context of future appointments; (g) since the decision in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, what discussions or meetings on judicial appointments have occurred with the Government of Quebec and the Barreau du Quebec; (h) in what ways has the question in (e) been studied or will be studied, if any; (i) in what ways has the pool of eligible persons for appointment to Quebec seats on the SCC been defined and identified, broken down by (i) gender, (ii), Aboriginal status, (iii) visible minority status; (j) what qualifications and merit criteria have been identified as necessary and desirable for an appointment to a Quebec seat on the SCC; (k) what steps have been undertaken to identify potential successors to Justice Lebel upon his anticipated retirement from the SCC; (l) if the process in (k) has not begun, when is it anticipated to begin and what will the first steps be; (m) what regard is given, if any, to the linguistic proficiencies of candidates for Quebec seats at the SCC, in both official languages, (i) at what point in the process is such proficiency assessed, (ii) by whom, (iii) to what standard; (n) does the answer in (m) vary if the vacancy were to arise from another province; (o) in what ways will Quebecers, their government, and their professional orders be consulted and involved in the process to fill present and future vacancies arising from the province at the SCC; (p) in what ways have Supreme Court justices from Quebec been consulted by the government, in the past and present, relative to the appointments process and credentials and will they be consulted in the future; and (q) for judges appointed to Quebec seats on SCC whose appointment and swearing in is subsequently deemed void ab inito, (i) are taxpayers reimbursed in any way for the appointment process by the government, (ii) is the salary of such a judge returned to the government for the period in which it was collected in error, (iii) who makes the determinations in (i) and (ii) and by what process, (iv) what impact does such a determination have on the retirement and pensionable allowances of such a judge if he or she were a federal judge prior to and post appointment to the SCC, (v) are nominees from Quebec informed of the possibility of their appointment and swearing in being deemed void ab initio and, if so, at what point in the process?

Q-449² — April 2, 2014 — — With regard to applications for Canadian citizenship by landed immigrants since 2006: what is the number of applications (by country of origin) and the average time of processing these applications, broken down by (i) federal riding, (ii) census metropolitan area (municipality), (iii) province?

Q-450² — April 2, 2014 — — With regard to visitor visas to Canada since 2006: (a) what is the number of visitor visa denials by the visa-processing office, broken down by country of origin; and (b) for the visitor visa denials in (a), what is the number of denials by visitor visa destination, broken down by (i) federal riding, (ii) census metropolitan area (municipality), (iii) province?

Q-451² — April 2, 2014 — — With regard to government spending in the constituency of York South—Weston: what is the total amount of such spending since fiscal year 2010-2011 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

Q-453² — April 3, 2014 — — With regard to page 255 of the English version of the Economic Action Plan 2014: what are the specific items and costs totalling $3.1 billion in deferred spending under National Defence Capital Funding?

Q-454² — April 3, 2014 — — With regard to the Extractives Cooperation for Enhanced Economic Development (EXCEED) Program under the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD): (a) which officials from DFATD and other departments, including the Privy Council Office, will be responsible for administering this program; (b) what was the entire process, including consultation, leading to the establishment of the program and what were the related dates; (c) did an external audit and evaluation committee assess the creation of this program; (d) what are (i) the reasons for establishing this program, (ii) the objectives, (iii) the mandate, (iv) the operations of this program; (e) how many employees will be assigned to manage and administer this program and what are their responsibilities; (f) are projects required to focus exclusively on African countries; (g) why was Latin America not included in this program; (h) what is the process for submitting project proposals; (i) will there be a tendering process; (j) when will the next request for proposals be issued; (k) how many project proposals has the program received since it was established; (l) what are the selection criteria and what is the complete project selection process; (m) who is eligible for funding under the program; (n) can private-sector companies receive funding under this program; (o) will a webpage be created on the DFATD website; (p) how much does this initiative cost; (q) what type of funding does this program award; (r) can the public or businesses contribute to the program now or in the future; (s) why was an initial budget of $25 million allocated; (t) will the budget be increased or decreased; (u) why was this program not announced in Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2014; (v) what indicators and measurement tools will be used to assess the effectiveness of projects funded by the program; (w) what specific measures have been taken and what internal audit and evaluation strategies have been developed for this program to ensure compliance with the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, particularly in relation to (i) poverty reduction, (ii) consistency with Canadian values, (iii) Canada’s foreign policy, (iv) the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, (v) sustainable development, (vi) promoting democracy, (vii) promoting international human rights standards; (x) what is the relationship between the Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development and the African Minerals Development Centre, and will they receive program funding; (y) how will the program fit within the departmental structure of DFATD, and what will be the reporting relationship among program officials; (z) with regard to the project “African Legal Support Facility”, which is receiving $10 million over 5 years under the EXCEED Program, (i) what was the date of the call for proposals for this project, (ii) was this a public call for proposals, (iii) on the basis of what criteria was this project selected, (iv) who are the project partners, (v) what is the performance measurement strategy for this project, including objectives, anticipated results, performance indicators, and internal audit and evaluation strategies, (vi) do the internal audit and evaluation strategies include an analysis of the reports prepared for the African Development Bank, (vii) what is the project’s mandate; and (aa) with regard to the project referred to in (z), what specific measures have been taken and what internal audit and evaluation strategies have been developed for this project to ensure compliance with the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, particularly in relation to (i) poverty reduction, (ii) consistency with Canadian values, (iii) Canada’s foreign policy, (iv) the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, (v) sustainable development, (vi) promoting democracy, (vii) promoting international human rights standards?

Q-455² — April 3, 2014 — — With regard to project number A033879-001, the construction of the National Police Academy in Ganthier, Haiti, by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD): (a) why was the project undertaken; b) on what date was the project started; (c) which Government of Canada employees were involved in starting the project; (d) were external organizations or external experts consulted when the project was designed, and if so, what (i) people were involved, (ii) businesses were involved; (e) what were the skills of the people and businesses in (d) respecting (i) the design of construction projects, (ii) the design of projects in Haiti, (iii) the tendering process, (iv) the awarding of contracts, (v) the amount of the contract, (vi) the length of the contract, (vii) the services or products delivered; (f) which international partners proposed or promoted the undertaking of this project to Canada; (g) who ordered the Environmental Assessment Screening Report of July 20, 2007, and what were the conclusions of this report; (h) how many government employees and which departments were involved in the decision of May 30, 2008, regarding the continuation of the project; (i) on what date was this project approved by (i) the former Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), (ii) the Minister of International Cooperation, (iii) the Treasury Board; (j) how long, in months, and how much money has the project designer budgeted for completion of the project; (k) how many tenders were planned for completion of the project; (l) how many tenders have there been for this project between 2007 and now, and for each tender, what were (i) the dates for the opening of tenders, (ii) the dates for the closing of tenders, (iii) the number of people involved in administering them, (iv) regarding the people in (iii), the skills respecting managing tenders, (v) the associated costs, (vi) the number of bids, (vii) the names of the companies or consortiums who bid; (m) for each tender, including those held from November 3, 2008, to January 6, 2008, and from April 28, 2010, to July 8, 2010, the prequalification process from October 5, 2011, to October 26, 2011, and the tender ending on June 21, 2012, (i) was there a prequalification process, and if not, why not; (n) did this tender and the standards of the construction contract meet the grants and contribution standards or Treasury Board standards, and if not, why not; (o) was it necessary to award a service contract to a person or business for the design of the tender or the project contract; (p) why was there a need to engage consulting services to formulate the tender and the construction contract; (q) how many selection files were received; (r) how many selection files predicted that costs would exceed the project budget; (s) was this tender open to international bidders; (t) what were the names of the bidders for this tender; (u) why were some bids rejected; (v) why was a bidder not selected at the end of the tendering process; (w) in each process following the closing of the tender, including those of January 6, 2008, July 8, 2010, and October 26, 2011, (i) what were the dates of the bid evaluation committee meeting, (ii) how many people and which departments were involved in this process; (x) of the people and departments in (w)(ii), what were their skills respecting (i) the design of construction projects, (ii) the design of projects in Haiti, (iii) the tendering process, (iv) the awarding of contracts; (y) was a person or business needed as a consulting services contractor during the bid evaluation process; (z) why were such consulting services used; (aa) did bidders respect the project budget; (bb) how many bidders forecast cost overruns; (cc) for each bid, by what percentage did the amounts exceed the project budget; (dd) what was the final decision following this tender; (ee) what selection criteria were modified for the subsequent tender; (ff) during the bidders’ conference of January 2010 in Port-au-Prince, who was present among (i) CIDA employees or any other Government of Canada employees, (ii) CIDA contractors, (iii) bidders, (iv) the Haitian government; (gg) how much money was spent on travel and accommodations for the people in (ff); (hh) what was the purpose of this conference; (ii) why were consulting services engaged to prepare for and hold the conference; (jj) who is responsible for this initiative; (kk) did the Department or the Agency ask bidders to travel to the project’s construction site, and if so, which ones did so; (ll) who was involved in the consulting services between the first and second tenders and what were the recommendations; (mm) why did a tendering process not start up again until October 5, 2011; (nn) why did Minister Oda make a new announcement of funding for the project while visiting Haiti on April 8, 2010, in a news release that granted additional funding; (oo) why did the project contribution amount increase from $18 million to $35 million between Minister Oda’s announcement of April 10, 2010, and today; (pp) did cost overruns in previous tenders have an impact on this increase; (qq) when was this decision made; (rr) did Minister Fantino’s statement of April 19, 2013, that Canada was currently reviewing its long-term strategy for Haiti impact the project deadline and, if so, what were these impacts; (ss) what information did Isabelle Bérard have on the progress of the project that allowed her to state in the meeting of October 8, 2011, of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that construction would begin in spring 2012; (tt) what options were considered for the construction of the Haitian National Police Academy on page 3 of the Memorandum to the Minister No. T-24106 of November 21, 2012; (uu) why does the Memorandum to the Minister No. T-24036 entitled “Canada’s Public Commitments to Haiti” make no mention of Canada’s commitments and progress in the project; (vv) when did construction start; (ww) what was the role and contribution of Mario Robillard in the construction project, (i) what were his qualifications, (ii) what was his salary, (iii) what was the length of his contract, (iv) did Mr. Robillard travel to the construction site in Haiti and, if so, when; (xx) to date, how many short-term jobs for Haitians have been created by this project; (yy) how many individuals responsible for operation and maintenance were hired for the project among the 30 requested individuals in the Canadian Commercial Corporation project brief; (zz) did DFATD sign a contract with a bidder for the project and, if not, what is the reason for the delay; (aaa) is it standard procedure to issue three tenders before awarding a construction contract; (bbb) does delaying the awarding of a construction contract respect the results-based management principle of the “Aid Effectiveness Agenda”; (ccc) what was the impact of the amalgamation of CIDA and DFATD on the project timeline; (ddd) did Canada meet the objective of welcoming 350 students at a time for training as part of this project, with a proportion of approximately 70% men and 30% women; (eee) is DFATD legally bound to complete construction of this project; (fff) does DFATD expect to achieve all of the project’s expected results by December 19, 2014, and, if not, will the project completion date be postponed; (ggg) what will the new deadline be; (hhh) when will the decision to postpone the deadline be made; (iii) will the decision in (hhh) be made public; (jjj) will there be a new tender; (kkk) have contribution disbursements for the project begun and, if so, (i) who are the recipients, (ii) when were these disbursements made; (lll) from what fund and constituent program was funding from the project withdrawn; (mmm) is the fund in (lll) still active; and (nnn) are there still projects funded by this fund and, if so, what are they?

Q-456² — April 3, 2014 — — With regard to duty remission on ships, boats and other vessels imported into Canada since January 1, 2006: (a) what requests for duty remission have been received (i) on what date, (ii) from whom, (iii) from what address; and (b) which requests were granted and, for each, (i) what is the value of the request, (ii) what was the value of the remission granted, (iii) what was the vessel's length, class, port of registry, and registration number, (iv) when was the decision rendered, (v) who authorized the duty remission?

Q-461² — April 3, 2014 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) have there been any reports produced on the health of shrimp stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador since 2001 and, if so, what are their titles; and (b) who holds the rights to shrimp quotas in both the inshore and offshore sectors and what is the individual quota allocation?

Q-462² — April 3, 2014 — — With regard to Treasury Board and the $280 million allocated to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as part of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: (a) why is the money being allocated; (b) what is the purpose of the money; and (c) are there any stipulations on the funding?

Q-463² — April 7, 2014 — — With regard to the use of the government-owned fleet of Challenger jets since September 2009: for each use of the aircraft, (a) what are the names and titles of the passengers present on the flight manifest; (b) what were all the departure and arrival points of the aircraft; (c) who requested access to the fleet; and (d) who authorized the flight?

Q-464² — April 7, 2014 — — With regard to unauthorized attempts to access government networks, for each year from 2003 to 2013: (a) how many incidents occurred in total, broken down by (i) department, institution, or agency, (ii) how many were successful, (iii) whether sensitive, classified, private, or proprietary information was stolen, (iv) the number of occasions where departments were forced offline, (v) the number of occasions on which it was determined where the attempt originated and, of those determined, what was the country of origin; (b) of those hacks identified in (a), how many have been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, broken down by (i) department, institution or agency, (ii) the number of individuals affected by the breach; and (c) how many breaches are known to have led to criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft, broken down by department, institution or agency?

Q-465² — April 7, 2014 — — With regard to the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act enacted as part of Bill C-22, with particular reference to the government's decision to increase the absolute liability amount and mandatory insurance coverage for nuclear operators to $1 billion: (a) has the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) asked Ontario Power Generation whether removing the cap on operator liability, while maintaining the level of absolute liability and mandatory insurance coverage required under the Act at $1 billion, would increase its generation costs and, if so, what were the details of the response, including the estimated increased cost-per-kWh; (b) has the DNR asked Bruce Power whether removing the cap on operator liability, while maintaining the level of absolute liability and mandatory insurance coverage required under the Act at $1 billion, would increase its generation costs and, if so, what were the details of the response, including the estimated increased cost-per-kWh; (c) has the DNR asked New Brunswick Power whether removing the cap on operator liability, while maintaining the level of absolute liability and mandatory insurance coverage, would increase its generation costs and, if so, what were the details of the response, including the estimated increased cost-per-kWh; (d) in the scenario in which the limit on reactor liability is removed while the mandatory insurance coverage and absolute liability of the operator remain at $1 billion, what is the DNR's estimate of the impacts that removing the cap on liability would have on provincial electricity rates, (i) what additional impacts would there be if the mandatory insurance coverage and absolute liability of the operator were increased to $1.5 billion, all other things being equal, (ii) what would the additional impacts be if the mandatory insurance coverage and absolute liability of the operator were increased to $2 billion, all other things being equal; (e) does the government determine the amount of liability required of nuclear operators by estimating whether it will be within the capacity of insurers to provide insurance at reasonable costs and, if so, (i) did the government use the same criterion for determining the absolute liability and insurance requirement for offshore operators, (ii) how does the government define "reasonable costs" for insurance, (iii) what is the limit in cost-per-kWh for what the DNR considers "reasonable costs" for insurance, (iv) did the government use the same definition of "reasonable costs" for insurance for the nuclear and oil industries; (f) what are the insurance costs-per-kWh for the $1 billion in insurance that is currently required for nuclear operators under Bill C-22, (i) what would these insurance costs-per-kWh be for the insurance requirement of $1.5 billion, (ii) what would these insurance costs be for the insurance requirement of $2 billion; (g) does the DNR determine the amount of liability required of nuclear operators by estimating its commensurability with the consequences of controlled releases of radiation and, if so, (i) what studies has the DNR undertaken regarding the consequences of accidents involving controlled releases of radiation, (ii) what is the estimated likelihood of such accidents, (iii) how has the DNR determined that the current amount of liability for nuclear operators under Bill C-22 is commensurate with the risk of such accidents; and (h) has the DNR commissioned any studies to estimate the implicit subsidy per kWh that would be created by imposing a cap on liability since the time it commissioned an empirical analysis of the Nuclear Liability Act (Heyes, Anthony, and Catherine Heyes. 2000. An Empirical Analysis of the Nuclear Liability Act (1970) in Canada. Resource & Energy Economics 22 (1):91-101) and, if so, what were the results of any such study?

Q-466² — April 8, 2014 — — With regard to Canadian international development assistance for each fiscal year 2007-2008 to 2013-2014: (a) what was Canada’s Official Development Assistance as a percentage of gross national income, using the same criteria used in Table A-2 “Canadian Historical ODA” of the 2006-2007 Statistical Report on International Assistance; and (b) is this information publically available in the same format?

Q-467² — April 9, 2014 — — With regard to federal grant programs to assist small-business entrepreneurs commercialize and market their products: (a) what federal programs exist for this purpose; (b) for each year since 2006, how much has been spent on each of these programs, broken down by province; (c) for each figure in (b), what percentages of the amounts were reserved for marketing activities; and (d) for each year since 2006, how much has been spent on youth marketing positions or activities through the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program’s Science and Technology Internship Program, broken down by province?

Q-468² — April 9, 2014 — — With regard to the financing and operation of the Confederation Bridge: (a) what are the amounts of toll revenues reported to the government as required by the Bridge Operating Agreement between the government and Strait Crossing Development Incorporated (SCDI), broken down by year and/or report from 1997 to the most current report; (b) has the government ever audited or evaluated SDCI’s records or remittances, as provided for in the Bridge Operating Agreement; (c) if the answer to (b) is yes, what were the key findings of the audits and what are the document identification references to these audits or evaluations; (d) if the answer to (b) is no, why has the government not audited SCDI’s records to date; (e) what has the government paid to SCDI or Strait Crossing Finance Inc. (SCFI) annually to retire the bonds issued by SCFI for the financing of the Confederation Bridge; (f) what are the government’s forecasted annual payments to SCDI or SCFI for the purposes of retiring the bonds for the remainder of its 35-year agreement with SCDI or SCFI; and (g) what are the amounts of any payments made owing to the government's guarantee to SCDI of a minimum of $13.9 million (1996 dollars) per year in toll revenue?

Q-469² — April 9, 2014 — — With regard to maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) : (a) in the answer provided to written question Q-208, (i) what services, key health and nutrition interventions are included in “scale-up integrated productive, maternal, newborn, and child health services”, (ii) what specific services and interventions are included in “family planning services”, (iii) what are the specific “commodities” referenced, (iv) what does “we are prepared to do more” mean, (v) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made or is considering, “to do more”, and in what Canadian and global forums, beyond the announced summit Canada will host on MNCH in Toronto at the end of May; (b) what consideration has the government given to a signature Canadian contribution to the post-2015 development agenda; (c) what consideration and diplomatic efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to support the inclusion of a specific high-level goal in the post-2015 agenda to improve health and nutrition outcomes for women, newborns, and children; (d) what financial efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to improve the health outcomes for (i) women, (ii) newborns, (iii) children, broken down by initiative; (e) regarding the Muskoka Initiative, what consideration and diplomatic and financial efforts, and in what forums, has the government given to (i) recommit to the investments made, (ii) extend and increase this Initiative or a similar one, beyond 2015 and beyond the $2.85 billion envelope, (iii) targeting the efforts of this Initiative to more effectively reach and provide health care to the most vulnerable mothers, newborns, and children, (iv) recommit to the vaccine investments made in this Initiative and to extend and increase the commitments made; (f) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made, or is it considering, and in what forums, to increase investments aimed at (i) strengthening local health systems, (ii) reducing the burden of infectious disease, (iii) improving maternal and child nutrition; (g) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made, or is it considering, and in what forums, to increase investments aimed at (i) prevention and treatment of neo-natal morbidity and prevention of neo-natal mortality, (ii) increased access to emergency obstetric care, (iii) prevention and treatment of childhood infectious disease; (h) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to increase investment in reproductive and sexual health interventions, particularly regarding adolescent girls; (i) what consideration, and diplomatic and financial efforts has the government given to (i) broadening, strengthening and harmonizing the MNCH Accountability Frameworks, (ii) prioritizing universal birth registration, civil registration, and vital statistics, (iii) increasing investment in the collection, processing, and dissemination of data, especially at the local level; and (j) what consideration has the government given to the Lancet Global Investment Framework for Women’s (LGIFW) and Children’s Health, and the Lancet Commission for Investing in Health, (i) to the Framework’s proposed two percent increase in spending, (ii) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to start a discussion regarding the LGIFW?

Q-470² — April 10, 2014 — — With regard to government records on the Manolis L. since its construction in 1980, what are the details of documents, memos, correspondence, reports, or any other forms of information that exist, broken down by (i) department, (ii) date, (iii) file or reference numbers, (iv) type of record, (vi) purpose, (vii) title, (viii) summary, (ix) contents, (x) availability?

Q-471² — April 10, 2014 — — With regard to Canada Post equipment renewal for community mailboxes and the new call for expressions of interest for specialized companies that responded to the first call for interest launched on July 24, 2013: (a) what company was awarded this contract; (b) what was the cost of the purchase; (c) what companies were invited to submit bids for this contract; and (d) why did Canada Post officials have information about the awarding of this contract removed from the MERX tendering website?

Q-472² — April 10, 2014 — — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada's contracts and community beds for veterans' long-term care: (a) what is the cost of long-term care for veterans in community beds, from 2009 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by province; (b) for the cost identified in (a), what is the cost by province for (i) WWII veterans, (ii) Korean war veterans, (iii) Canadian Forces veterans; (c) what is the cost of long-term care for veterans in contract bed facilities, from 2009 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by province; (d) for the cost identified in (c), what is the cost of care by province for (i) WWII veterans, (ii) Korean war veterans, (iii) Canadian Forces veterans; (e) what are the anticipated costs for long term care for veterans in community beds for the next five years for (i) WWII veterans, (ii) Korean war veterans, (iii) Canadian Forces veterans; and (f) what are the anticipated costs for long term care for veterans in contract beds facilities for the next five years for (i) WWII veterans, (ii) Korean war veterans, (iii) Canadian Forces veterans?

Q-473² — April 10, 2014 — — With regard to disabled RCMP veterans who are trying to end the reduction of long-term disability benefits by the amount of their Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension: (a) how many Members of Parliament (MP) wrote to the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to the issue identified above for each of the years from 2010 to 2014; (b) how many Conservative MPs wrote to the Minister with respect to the above issue for each of the years from 2010 to 2014; (c) what was the total amount of money spent by all government departments and agencies on the disabled RCMP members' class action lawsuit, including outside legal counsel; and (d) what is the estimated cost for settling the RCMP class action lawsuit?

Q-474² — April 10, 2014 — — With regard to disabled Canadian Forces veterans who are trying to obtain fair compensation with settlements under the New Veterans Charter (NVC): (a) how many Members of Parliament wrote to the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to fair compensation for injured veterans under the NVC, for each of the years from 2006 to 2014 inclusive; (b) what is the total amount of money spent by all government departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, from October 2013 to the present, on the Equitas Society class action lawsuit; (c) what is the total amount of money spent by the government to hire outside legal counsel from October 2013 to the present on the Equitas Society class action lawsuit; and (d) what is the total amount of money spent by all government departments and agencies on the Equitas Society class action lawsuit from October 2012 to the present, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice?

Q-475² — April 10, 2014 — — With regard to homeless veterans: (a) what programs from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) are in place to assist homeless veterans; (b) what programs are in place by other government departments, if applicable, to assist homeless veterans; (c) what organizations are working in partnership with VAC to provide support to homeless veterans, broken down by province; (d) what is the annual breakdown of contributions issued to organizations working in partnership with VAC on veterans' homelessness from 2009 to 2013 inclusively, further broken down by province; (e) how much did VAC spend on veterans' homelessness annually from 2009 to 2013 inclusively; (f) what are the details of VAC's evaluation of the effectiveness of their financial contribution and program delivery for the partnership defined in (c); (g) is VAC considering a plan for a national coordinated effort to support homeless veterans and, if so, what are the details; (h) how many homeless veterans have been identified annually by VAC, from 2009 to 2013 inclusively; (i) how many homeless veterans have been identified by organizations working in partnership with VAC annually from 2009 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by province; (j) how many homeless veterans identified in (h) and (i) are now in receipt of departmental benefits or services; (k) what is the breakdown of the type of departmental benefits or services the homeless veterans received from 2009 to 2013; (l) what are the planned expenditures by VAC for homeless veterans for the next five years; and (m) what are the planned expenditures by VAC for organizations working in partnership with VAC to provide support to homeless veterans?

Q-476² — April 10, 2014 — — With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Alberta, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file-number of the press release?

Q-477² — April 24, 2014 — — With regard to ex gratia payments by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, based on Order in Council 2012-0861 issued in June 2013 which provides the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) with the authority to approve ex gratia payments of up to $250,000 in his adjudication of grievances: what is the number of instances where the CDS used that authority, broken down by (i) total number, (ii) rank of grievor, (iii) type of grievance, (iv) amount paid?

Q-478² — April 24, 2014 — — With regard to the Canadian Forces' Cadet Program, for the years 2008 to 2014, broken down by region: (a) what is the overall budget allotment per year for the program; (b) what is the full breakdown of the costs of the program, broken down by cadets and officers, including but not limited to, information on capital expenditures, administration and support, uniforms and equipment, and travel; (c) what is the full breakdown of the costs of staffing the program, including the breakdown of costs by intermediary staff, support staff, and military staff; (d) how much of the program's budget is spent per cadet and what is the amount directly delivered to the local squadrons and corps, excluding uniforms and salaries for squadron and corps staff; and (e) how much of the program's budget is spent on administration, broken down by the following rank level and category, (i) part-time primary Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS) and Cadet Instructors Cadre (CIC) reservists, (ii) full-time primary COATS and CIC reservists, (iii) civilian employees?

Q-479² — April 24, 2014 — — With regard to government funding allocated to the constituency of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine: (a) what is the total amount of funding allocated from fiscal year 1993-1994 to fiscal year 2001-2002, broken down by year, department or agency, initiative, and amount; and (b) if any of the amounts requested in (a) are not available, why not?

Q-480² — April 24, 2014 — — With regard to government funding allocated to the constituency of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia: (a) what is the total amount of funding allocated from fiscal year 1993-1994 to the present date, broken down by year, department or agency, initiative, and amount; and (b) if any of the amounts requested in (a) are not available, why not?

Q-481² — April 24, 2014 — — With regard to the streamlining and consolidation of offices and jobs in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, including the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) what offices, branches and service centres have been restructured since 2006, (i) how many jobs have been affected, (ii) among these jobs, how many have been reallocated elsewhere in the Department, (iii) to what programs or sub-programs and to what locations have these jobs been reallocated; (b) what departmental programs have been restructured in terms of jobs since 2006, (i) what programs or sub-programs have been affected, (ii) among these jobs, how many have been reallocated elsewhere in the Department, (iii) to what programs or sub-programs have these jobs been reallocated; and (c) how many science-related jobs have been affected since 2006?

Q-482² — April 24, 2014 — — With regard to the accounts of the former Canadian International Development Agency for 2012-2013, compared to those of 2011-2012: (a) what was the total amount of increased funding for multilateral programs; (b) what sectors within the multilateral programs have seen an increase in funding; (c) what sectors within the bilateral programs have seen a decrease in funding; (d) was multilateral spending increased for maternal, newborn and child health; (e) has funding for education decreased or increased, and for which Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Assistance Committee codes; (f) why was there an unused balance of the Crisis Pool Quick Release mechanism; and (g) can the balance of a certain mechanism’s unused funds be reallocated to different programs?

Q-483² — April 28, 2014 — — With regard to the current 2015 code review cycle of the National Building Code of Canada: (a) are amendments to the code under consideration that would make the safety of firefighters and other first responders an objective under the code; (b) are amendments to the code under consideration concerning the installation of sprinkler systems in existing and new health-care and assisted-living facilities or other collective residences; and (c) which industry associations or unions have been consulted with respect to any amendments under consideration as described in (a) or (b)?

Q-484² — April 28, 2014 — — With regard to applications to the New Building Canada Fund since April 1, 2014: (a) for what projects were applications received; and (b) for each application, (i) on what date (ii) from what organization, (iii) in what province, (iv) what is the type of the project, (v) what component and/or subcomponent of the fund was funding sought under, (vi) what is the total value of the project, (vii) what is the total value of the requested federal contribution, (viii) when is the targeted completion date, (ix) how much funding is available during that period under that component or subcomponent of the fund?

Q-485² — April 29, 2014 — — With regard to access to information requests to government departments, institutions and agencies for each year from 2003 to 2013: (a) how many requests were made in total, broken down by department, institution, or agency, (i) what was the average number of days taken to process these requests, (ii) what was the method by which a delay to a request was determined, (iii) is there a formula by which the number of days of delay is quantitatively determined, (iv) what was the number of requests signed by the Minister before being sent out, (v) what was the number of days delayed per request waiting for the Minister’s signature, (vi) what was the number of requests to which ministerial staff requested or demanded that modifications be made by the Access to Information and Privacy Directorate (ATIP), or about which ministerial staff raised questions with ATIP, (vii) what was the number of requests modified after questions, requests, or demands by staff in the Minister’s office, (viii) what was the average delay per request due to questions, requests, or demands by staff in the Minister's office; (b) of those requests identified in (v) and (vi), how many have been reported to the Office of the Information Commissioner, broken down by department, institution or agency; (c) do policies exist to minimize delays, broken down by (i) department, institution, or agency, (ii) are they formal or informal policies, (iii) were there cases where these policies could not be applied and, if so, how many, (iv) of those times in (iii), what was the reason, (v) of those in (iii), what was the length of delay; and (d) did weekly meetings organized by the ATIP Directorate occur, broken down by department, institution, or agency and, if so, (i) did staff from the Minister’s office attend, (ii) did staff from the Minister’s office play an active role, (iii) did staff from the Minister’s office flag files in any capacity and, if so, on what basis, (iv) did staff from the Minister’s office ask questions, make requests or demands to the ATIP Directorate?

Q-486² — April 29, 2014 — — With regard to on-reserve educational facilities for First Nations in Canada: (a) what requests for capital building expenditure funding for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities have been made from 2008 to the present; (b) which of these requests have been granted by the government and why; (c) which of these requests were denied and why; (d) which of these requests were delayed, by whom (i.e. government or band council), by how long, and why; (e) what funds have been committed by the government for capital building expenditure for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities on-reserve in each fiscal year from 2008-2009 to 2013-2014; (f) what on-reserve educational facilities projects are currently underway; (g) in each year since 2008, what projects have been delayed or postponed, and, if any, what were the justifications for and lengths of these delays; (h) what projects are slated to begin work in the 2014-2015 fiscal year; (i) what portion of the total cost of these projects is being funded by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) through capital building infrastructure; (j) how many projects included additional money from a First Nation to complete the construction or for the equipping of an educational facility; (k) what on-reserve educational facilities projects are slated to begin work beyond the 2014-2015 fiscal year; (l) how many communities with projects identified by INAC as priority capital projects have had letters of approval issued to them; (m) since 2008, what amounts from the "Community Infrastructure" line item have been reallocated either within INAC or to other government departments; (n) with regard to capital building expenditure funding for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities built on First Nations Reserves for each year from 2008 to the present, broken down by (i) year and (ii) community, how much money was planned but not spent on schools and why?

Q-487² — April 30, 2014 — — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, since 2011 inclusive: (a) for each province or territory, and for each Census Metropolitan Area or Economic Region, what is (i) the total number of applications for a Labour Market Opinion, (ii) the number of applications approved, (iii) the number of applications denied, (iv) the average length of time between the receipt of an application and the issuance of the decision; and (b) for each province or territory, what is (i) the total number of applications for an Accelerated Labour Market Opinion, (ii) the number of applications approved, (iii) the number of applications denied, (iv) the average length of time between the receipt of an application and the issuance of the decision?

Q-488² — April 30, 2014 — — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) what oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor compliance; (b) who conducts workplace inspections; (c) how many persons responsible for inspection have been employed each year since 2006 inclusive; and (d) how many workplace inspections have been carried out each year since 2006, broken down by (i) province or territory of workplace, (ii) Census Metropolitan Area or Economic Region?

Q-489² — May 1, 2014 — — With regard to the International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS) commissioned by the International Joint Council (IJC): (a) what input or comment did the government provide, through any department or agency, during the comment periods for the two stages of the report; (b) what documents have been produced by any departments or agencies in preparation for or as a result of the IUGLS report, including the date and authoring department or agency of each document; (c) for each year since 2006, what measures have been taken by the government to mitigate falling water levels in the Great Lakes, broken down by department and agency; (d) what measures have been taken by departments or agencies as a result of the recommendations in the IUGLS; (e) what measures are being considered by departments or agencies as a result of, or in relation to, the IUGLS; and (f) what documents have been produced by any department or agency with regard to existing or future economic or environmental impacts of volatile water levels in the Great Lakes basin, including the date and authoring department or agency of each document?

Q-490² — May 2, 2014 — — With regard to government funding in the riding of LaSalle—Émard, how much was provided for fiscal years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) name of initiative or program and its description, (iii) date, amount and name of recipient?

Q-491² — May 5, 2014 — — With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency since January 1, 2013, for each contract, what is the: (a) vendor's name; (b) reference number; (c) date; (d) description of the services provided; (e) delivery date; (f) original value; and (g) final value if different from the original value?

Q-492² — May 5, 2014 — — With regard to Health Canada’s study on neonicotinoid pesticides: (a) what is the mandate of the study; (b) when will the study be completed; (c) will the results be released publicly and, if so, how will they be released; (d) will the study include public consultations and, if so, (i) with what groups, (ii) where, (iii) when; (e) will the study include case studies and, if so, (i) which case studies will be chosen, (ii) will the case studies cover the decline in the health of insect pollinators; (f) will part of the study include the impact of the use of neonicotinoid pesticides on the decrease in insect pollinators; (g) who will have access to the final report of the study from among (i) the public, (ii) government departments and agencies, (iii) ministers; (h) which (i) groups, (ii) departments (iii) organizations, (iv) scientists, (v) regions, (vi) groupings; (vii) towns, (viii) municipalities, (ix) provinces and territories will be consulted; (i) when determining the scope of the problem, will the study take into account the (i) direct, (ii) indirect, (iii) cumulative impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides; (j) which pesticides will be studied; (k) what impacts will be studied in terms of (i) the economy, (ii) municipalities (iii) communities, (iv) Aboriginal peoples, (v) human health, (vi) animal health, (vii) aquatic flora, (viii) aquatic fauna, (ix) terrestrial flora, (x) terrestrial fauna; and (l) what are the titles of the studies on neonicotinoid pesticides undertaken between 2004 and 2014?

Q-493² — May 6, 2014 — — With regard to spending in the Joliette riding, what was the total amount spent, from fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the funds were received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount, (ii) the program through which the funding was allocated, (iv) the department responsible, (v) the designated recipient?

Q-494² — May 6, 2014 — — With regard to the operation of the Skills Link Program: (a) what is the approval process for an application; (b) how many parties propose recommendations to an application before ministerial approval; (c) how does the Minister’s office assess an application; (d) how is the budget for the program split up across the country; (e) how much money was spent in each of the areas specified in (d) for the 2013-2014 program; (f) how much money was allocated and spent in each constituency for the 2013-2014 program; and (g) is money left over from the 2013-2014 program?

Q-495² — May 6, 2014 — — With regard to the funding of First Nations educational infrastructure: (a) what are the prioritization criteria for deciding in what order on-reserve schools are to be renovated or modified; (b) what are the first one hundred schools on the prioritization list; (c) where does École Simon P. Ottawa in Manawan rank on the list; (d) what was the estimated useful life and capacity of École Simon P. Ottawa in Manawan at the time it was built; (e) when will École Simon P. Ottawa be replaced; and (f) what is the assessment in terms of the capacity of École Simon P. Ottawa in Manawan, given the population boom in this community?

Q-496² — May 6, 2014 — — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, what is: (a) the number of all positions authorized through Labour Market Opinions, broken down by (i) region, (ii) National Occupation Code; and (b) the number of all temporary foreign workers, broken down by region and National Occupation Code, employed by (i) any government department, (ii) any government agency, (iii) any Crown Corporation?

Q-497² — May 6, 2014 — — With regard to the management and publication of material related to judicial appointments: (a) what is the policy of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada with respect to posting information pertaining to candidates; (b) in what way is the nomination material archived; (c) is the material on the website the same as in the binder provided to MPs and, if not, how do they differ; (d) when materials are removed from the website, (i) who keeps copies, (ii), who is provided a copy, (iii) how can this material be accessed, (iv) by whom can it be accessed, (v) how long is it kept; (e) are the materials from the website provided to the Supreme Court of Canada, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what conditions relating to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (f) are the materials from the website provided to the Library of Parliament, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what understating relative to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (g) are the materials from the website provided to the Department of Justice, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what conditions relating to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (h) are the materials from the website provided to the Minister of Justice, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what conditions relating to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (i) are the materials from the website provided to the Prime Minister’s Office, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what understating relative to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (j) are the materials from the website provided to Library and Archives Canada and, if so, (i) by whom, (ii) to whom, (iii) on what date, (iv) with what conditions relating to their retention, (v) if not, why not; (k) how many binders were prepared relative to Mr. Justice Marc Nadon’s appointment and where are these binders now; (l) how many binders were prepared relative to Mr. Justice Wagner’s appointment and where are these binders now; (m) in what way and through what processes can previous binders be consulted by (i) parliamentarians, (ii) the public, (iii) the media, (iv) legal scholars; (n) for how long does the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada retain all information relative to judicial appointment cycles and what are its policies on both retention of these materials and access to them; (o) with respect to the inclusion of publications, seminars and lectures in Mr. Justice’s Wagner’s materials, why is no such material included in Mr. Justice Nadon’s materials and whose decision was this; (p) with respect to the statement made in the government’s response to written question Q-239, that “ (bb)(i) The material requested in the latest appointment process does not differ materially from those requested for the appointment of Justice Wagner” and “(iv) The wording was substantially the same”, what is the difference between “materially” and “substantially” insofar as case law areas are concerned; (q) do the uses of “materially” and “substantially” mean that the wording was not exactly the same; (r) were Justices Wagner and Justice Nadon asked for the same exact materials and same areas of cases law and, if not, why not; (s) do the types of materials sought from candidates change between appointment cycles, (i) if so, why, (ii) who makes this determination; (t) do the types of material sought from candidates for Quebec seats change between appointment cycles, (i) if so, why, (ii) how is this determined; (u) with what bodies did the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada consult in developing a retention and access policy relative to materials associated with a judicial appointment; (v) why is candidate information on the website for the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada only temporarily online and how was this policy developed; (w) were any briefing documents, presentations, or memos prepared for ministers or their staff, from 2006 to present, regarding Supreme Court Appointments and, for each, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject-matters, (iii) department, commission, or agency’s internal tracking number; (x) do members of the Selection Panel have access to the materials developed or used in an appointment process after the appointment has been made; (y) does the Minister of Justice or Prime Minister have access to the materials developed or used in an appointment process after the appointment has been made; (z) does an appointed justice have any access to the materials developed or used in the process after the appointment has been made; (aa) does any person consulted in the process of an appointment have any access to materials or records developed or used in the process at any time; (bb) what materials were developed or used in the most recent appointment process; (cc) what records of meetings or other items exist relative to the most recent appointment process, (i) by what means can they be accessed, (ii) by whom; and (dd) does the Minister of Justice or Prime Minister have any access to materials not accessible to other persons and, if so, what materials, and by virtue of what process or policy?

Q-498² — May 7, 2014 — — With regard to the children’s fitness tax credit, do Canadian Heritage or Sport Canada have studies in their possession measuring the impact that this tax credit has on the level of sports participation among young Canadians and the impact that it has on parents’ decisions to register their children in physical activities that are eligible for the tax credit?

Q-499² — May 7, 2014 — — With regard to applications made under the Employment Insurance Program: (a) what was the volume of applications for Employment Insurance, Special Benefits, that have been received by Service Canada in 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province/region; (b) how many of the cases in (a) waited longer than 28 days for a response, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province/region; (c) what was the volume of applications for Employment Insurance, Regular Benefits, that have been received by Service Canada in 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province/region; and (d) how many of the cases in (c) have waited longer than 28 days for a response, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province/region?

Q-500² — May 8, 2014 — — With regard to the contract announced on February 14, 2014, between the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the government of Saudi Arabia for the supply of armoured vehicles built in London, Ontario, by General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, and the export permits issued by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD) in accordance with the contract: (a) how many export permits has DFATD issued related to the announced contract, and for each permit issued, what was the (i) value, (ii) date, (iii) valid duration; (b) of the $4.02 billion worth in export permits issued to Saudi Arabia in 2011 for exports of Group 2 (military) goods, how many Group 2 permits were related to the announced contract; (c) were the export permits related to the announced contract issued to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, to General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, or to both; and (d) has the Canadian Commercial Corporation charged, or will it charge, fees for its services regarding the announced contract, (i) have these fees been charged or will they be charged to the Saudi Arabia government, to General Dynamics Land Systems Canada or to both, (ii) if so, is the fee a standard amount or is it determined by the size of the contract?

Q-501² — May 13, 2014 — — With regard to salmon farming in Canada: (a) how many outbreaks of infectious salmon anemia have been reported in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, broken down by province; (b) how many outbreaks of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus have been reported in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, broken down by province; (c) how much money has the government paid out in compensation to producers who were ordered to destroy salmon infected with infectious salmon anemia in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, broken down by province; (d) how much money has the government paid out in compensation to producers who were ordered to destroy salmon infected with infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, broken down by province; (e) how much money has the government paid out in compensation to producers who were ordered to destroy salmon infected with other diseases in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, broken down by province; (f) how much money has the government paid out in compensation to companies headquartered outside of Canada which were ordered to destroy salmon infected with diseases in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014; (g) what plans does the Canadian Food Inspection Agency currently have in place if there are more outbreaks of diseases resulting in compensation to salmon producers; (h) what biosecurity measures are salmon producers required to take in order to be eligible for compensation for the destruction of diseased salmon; (i) what cost-benefit analysis has the government undertaken concerning federal compensation to salmon producers; and (j) has the government examined the cost differential in federal compensation to salmon producers using open-pen systems compared to salmon producers using closed containment systems, and, if so, what were the results of this analysis?

Q-502² — May 13, 2014 — — With regard to pesticide residues in tea: (a) what method is used by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to test pesticide residues in dry tea leaves; (b) for which pesticides does the CFIA test tea products, and do these tests include all pesticides approved in Canada; (c) how often does the CFIA test tea products for pesticide residues; (d) how many tea products were tested for pesticide residues in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014; (e) how many tea products were found to contain levels of pesticides exceeding the allowable limits in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014, and what action was taken by the government in relation to those products; (f) what policies do the CFIA and Health Canada have in place for tea products containing the residues of multiple pesticides; (g) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential risks to consumers posed by pesticide residues found in tea leaves, and what were the results of this analysis; and (h) how often does Health Canada assess the safety of pesticide residues in food products approved for sale in Canada?

Q-503² — May 13, 2014 — — With regard to the use of azodicarbonamide in Canada: (a) in what year was Health Canada’s most recent assessment of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products completed; (b) what research and data was used in this assessment; (c) did Health Canada’s most recent assessment of azodicarbonamide include analysis of its chemical by-products semicarbazide and urethane and, if so, what were the results of this analysis; (d) when does Health Canada plan to undertake its next assessment of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products; (e) what has Health Canada established to be a safe, acceptable daily intake of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products; (f) what information does the government collect to ensure that Canadians are not exceeding the safe, acceptable daily intake of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products; (g) how many products containing azodicarbonamide have been approved for sale in Canada; and (h) what labelling requirements has the government established in regard to products containing azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products?

Q-504² — May 14, 2014 — — With regard to Parks Canada’s Parks Passport program: (a) for the time period of 2010 to 2013, broken down by month and year, (i) how many students registered for the program, (ii) of those who registered, how many attended, (iii) from what schools, (iv) in which region and city; and (b) broken down by region, province and year, which parks participated in the program?

Q-505² — May 14, 2014 — — With regard to the staffing of Canadian Armed Forces clinics: (a) at each base/location, what is the number employed of (i) military psychiatrists, (ii) civilian psychiatrists employed directly by the Department of National Defence (DND), (iii) psychiatrists from Calian Technologies Ltd., (iv) military psychologists, (v) civilian psychologists employed directly by the DND, (vi) Calian psychologists, (vii) military medical doctors, (viii) civilian medical doctors employed directly by the DND, (ix) Calian medical doctors, (x) military medical social workers, (xi) civilian medical social workers employed directly by the DND, (xii) Calian medical social workers, (xiii) military registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xiv) civilian registered nurses specializing in mental health employed directly by the DND, (xv) Calian registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xvi) military addictions counsellors, (xvii) civilian addictions counsellors employed directly by the DND, (xviii) Calian addictions counsellors; (b) what is the average full-time equivalent salary for (i) military psychiatrists, (ii) civilian psychiatrists employed directly by the DND, (iii) Calian psychiatrists, (iv) military psychologists, (v) civilian psychologists employed directly by the DND, (vi) Calian psychologists, (vii) military medical doctors, (viii) civilian medical doctors employed directly by the DND, (ix) Calian medical doctors, (x) military medical social workers, (xi) civilian medical social workers employed directly by the DND, (xii) Calian medical social workers, (xiii) military registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xiv) civilian registered nurses specializing in mental health employed directly by the DND, (xv) Calian registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xvi) military addictions counsellors, (xvii) civilian addictions counsellors employed directly by the DND, (xviii) Calian addictions counsellors; and (c) what is the average number of patients treated per month by (i) military psychiatrists, (ii) civilian psychiatrists employed directly by the DND, (iii) Calian psychiatrists, (iv) military psychologists, (v) civilian psychologists employed directly by the DND, (vi) Calian psychologists, (vii) military medical doctors, (viii) civilian medical doctors employed directly by the DND, (ix) Calian medical doctors, (x) military medical social workers, (xi) civilian medical social workers employed directly by the DND, (xii) Calian medical social workers, (xiii) military registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xiv) civilian registered nurses specializing in mental health employed directly by the DND, (xv) Calian registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xvi) military addictions counsellors, (xvii) civilian addictions counsellors employed directly by the DND, (xviii) Calian addictions counsellors?


² Response requested within 45 days