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, November 26, 2010 (No. 105)

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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.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-297 — June 9, 2010 — — With regard to travel to Vancouver by government officials and employees for the period January 1, 2009 to present: (a) what is the total number of room nights charged to the government; (b) which departments purchased accommodations in Vancouver during this period; (c) how many room nights were charged to each department; (d) in which hotels were government officials and employees accommodated; and (e) what, if any, standing contracts for hotel accommodations does each department hold and with which hotels?

Q-432² — October 7, 2010 — — With regard to the Universal Child Care Plan: (a) how many child care spaces have been created each year, broken down by province, since the program’s inception in 2006; (b) how much has been spent each year, since 2006, on the development of child care spaces; (c) how many companies have made use of the 25 percent tax credit to create new child care spaces; (d) how many spaces have been created to date using this credit; and (e) what is the dollar value of the credits used?

Q-433² — October 7, 2010 — — With regard to the firearms training program for Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers: (a) how many CBSA officers have participated in firearms training since the program’s inception in 2006; (b) how many CBSA officers have successfully passed the program; (c) how many CBSA officers are currently armed; (d) how many years will it take to train and arm all remaining CBSA officers and how much money does the government expect to spend on training for these CBSA officers; (e) what dollar amount has been spent so far on this program; (f) what government studies have been done on the effectiveness of this initative; (g) for every study in (f), what is the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date of publication, (iv) brief synopsis of its conclusions; (h) how many times has a CBSA officer used his or her weapon in the line of duty; (i) for every incident in (h), where did the incident take place and what is a brief description of the incident?

Q-434² — October 7, 2010 — — With respect to missing and murdered Aboriginal women and the $10 million announced in Budget 2010 to address this issue: (a) with whom has the government consulted to determine where this money should be spent; (b) what process was adopted for determining where this money would be spent; (c) what groups has the government considered funding with this money; (d) how much of this money has been allocated; and (e) when will the rest of this money be allocated?

Q-435² — October 7, 2010 — — With regard to Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence: (a) which organizations, lobbyists and interest groups did each minister consult before May 5, 2010; (b) did any ministers receive briefing materials about this Bill; (c) what department or organization prepared these briefing materials; (d) what did these materials state; and (e) who were these materials given to?

Q-436² — October 7, 2010 — — With regard to projects funded by the Recreational Infrastructure Canada program in the riding of Brant, what is the total number of jobs created or sustained for each project, according to reports submitted to the government, pursuant to Schedule "H" of the Recreational Infrastructure Funding Agreement?

Q-437² — October 7, 2010 — — With regard to the Building Canada Fund (BCF) projects in the riding of Brant, what is the total number of jobs created or sustained for each project, according to reports submitted to the government, pursuant to Schedule "C" of the BCF Communities Component Agreement?

Q-439² — October 7, 2010 — — With regard to the Building Canada Fund (BCF) projects in the riding of Brampton West, what is the total number of jobs created or sustained for each project, according to reports submitted to the government, pursuant to Schedule "C" of the BCF Communities Component Agreement?

Q-440² — October 14, 2010 — — With regard to the negotiations between the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (BCMEA) and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU): (a) how much did it cost to produce the report by mediators Hughes and Rooney, from the time of their appointment to the end of their mandate; (b) has the Minister reviewed the report, including submissions from the BCMEA and the ILWU; (c) has the Labour Program made recommendations to the Minister on the report and, if so, what were those recommendations; and (d) will the Minister appoint an industrial commission as recommended in the report?

Q-441² — October 14, 2010 — — With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan signs, broken down by government department, agency, foundation and Crown Corporation: (a) how many signs were distributed, broken down by province and by federal riding, during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 fiscal years; (b) what was the installation cost of each sign; (c) what is the maintenance cost of each sign; (d) who were the contractors responsible for the installation and maintenance of the signs, broken down by province and by federal riding; (e) which department, agency, foundation or Crown Corporation is responsible for each sign and sign location; and (f) how many signs, broken down by province and federal riding, are planned to be installed by the end of fiscal year 2010-2011?

Q-442² — October 14, 2010 — — With respect to the 400th anniversary of the founding of Cupids, Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what is the total dollar amount spent by the government for the 400th anniversary of Cupids; (b) what non-monetary support was provided by the government to assist with the celebrations; (c) what was the government’s budget for the celebrations; and (d) how much was actually spent on the celebrations?

Q-443² — October 14, 2010 — — With regard to Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD): (a) what are potential outcomes of the ongoing strategic review of WD; (b) how much project funding was allocated, broken down by Western province and riding, for fiscal years (i) 2007-2008, (ii) 2008-2009, (iii) 2009-2010, (iv) 2010-2011; (c) how much funding was allocated and how many projects were funded by WD under the Economic Action Plan; (d) what are the funding and Full-Time Equivalent projections for WD for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (e) how much core and project funding has been allocated to each Regional Development Agency, broken down by province, during fiscal years (i) 2007-2008, (ii) 2008-2009, (iii) 2009-2010, (iv) 2010-2011; (f) how much funding was allocated to support operations of WD's office in Ottawa during fiscal years (i) 2007-2008, (ii) 2008-2009, (iii) 2009-2010, (iv) 2010-2011; (g) how many staff were assigned to work in the Ottawa office during fiscal years (i) 2007-2008, (ii) 2008-2009, (iii) 2009-2010, (iv) 2010-2011; and (h) what programs or initiatives will sunset in 2010-2011 and are there any new programs to be launched in 2011-2012?

Q-444² — October 18, 2010 — — With regard to government polling from January 1, 2006 to September 22, 2010: (a) how much was spent annually (i) broken down by department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission, (ii) broken down by department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission and by province and territory; (b) how much was spent, broken down by type of polling technique (phone, online, focus groups, etc.), (i) annually, (ii) annually by each department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission; and (c) what companies received contracts to complete this polling work, broken down by type of polling technique, (i) annually, (ii) annually by each department, crown corporation, foundation, agency, board and commission?

Q-445² — October 18, 2010 — — With respect to the diesel spill that occurred on September 28, 2010, from Suncor’s refinery facilities at the Port of Montreal, namely quays 109 and 110: (a) have inspections of the infrastructure at the source of the leak been carried out since June 2008; (b) for each inspection carried out after June 2008, (i) what was the department, corporation or agency responsible for the inspection, (ii) at what date was the inspection done, (iii) what was the name of the person responsible for the inspection, (iv) what were the characteristics of the infrastructure inspected, (v) what was the state of the infrastructure inspected, (vi) what was the type of test performed, (vii) what was the result of the tests performed; and (c) what is the age of the infrastructure at the source of the leak?

Q-446² — October 18, 2010 — — With regard to the Ontario-Quebec gateway issue, since the 2004–2005 fiscal year: (a) how much money has been invested, broken down by project; (b) which projects have received funding; (c) which projects have been completed; (d) at what stage of completion are the unfinished projects; (e) what have been the yearly budgets, up to and including the present fiscal year; (f) were all the funds allocated in the budgets spent; (g) what are the projected budgets for the coming years; (h) what factors explain why the budgets were not fully spent; and (i) what criteria needed to be met for a project to receive funding?

Q-447² — October 18, 2010 — — With respect to the site of the former CFB Rockcliffe: (a) how much has the Canada Lands Company spent over the past ten years, charged to what budget item, on the site’s development; and (b) of the funding granted to external firms or consultants for this development, how much has gone to each firm or consultant and what are the names of these firms or consultants?

Q-448² — October 18, 2010 — — With regard to the cruise ship industry since 2005: (a) what federal departments have provided support to the cruise ship industry across Canada, to date; (b) how much was spent on each project by each federal department, agency, board and commission in support of the cruise ship industry, to date; (c) what is the annual total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff in each federal agency, board, or commission working on implementation of projects related to the cruise ship industry; (d) what specific federal programs support the development of the cruise ship industry in Canada; (e) what were the discharge incidents of sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or solid waste by cruise ships in Canadian waters, distributed by date, location, ship, and type of discharge; (f) how many charges, warnings or penalties were issued against cruise ship operators for all sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or other discharges in contradiction of regulations, including date, operator, location, offence and amount; (g) how much was spent by each federal agency, commission, department or organization in enforcement of regulations related to discharge of sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or other discharges; (h) what is the annual total number of FTEs working in each federal agency, commission, department or organization on enforcement of regulations related to discharge of sewage, bilge, grey water, or other discharges; (i) what onboard observation has been performed by each federal agency, commission, department or organization with respect to discharge of sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or other discharges, distributed by year and location; (j) what reports, studies, investigations, conclusions, regulatory changes, warnings, or penalties were issued or undertaken by any federal government body related to the cruise ship Queen Elizabeth II’s September 2005 discharge incident off the coast of Cape Breton; (k) how much was spent by each federal organization for port upgrades in support of the cruise ship industry; (l) how many agreements were signed between federal organizations and private cruise companies for docking in Canadian ports; and (m) what companies signed agreements with the government for access to Canadian waters and on what conditions?

Q-449² — October 18, 2010 — — With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: (a) what specific system is in place to determine exactly how many food inspectors the agency has; (b) how many food inspectors were in place prior to August 31, 2008; (c) how many food inspectors have been hired per quarter since October 15, 2008; (d) what exactly does each inspector inspect; (e) where exactly is each inspector stationed; and (f) what is the total cost per calendar year, beginning in 2008 to present, for the hiring of these inspectors?

Q-451² — October 18, 2010 — — With regard to the government's Economic Action Plan, for each of the project announcements in the electoral district of Mississauga—Streetsville: (a) what was (i) the date of the announcement, (ii) the amount of stimulus spending announced, (iii) the department which made the announcement; (b) was there a public event associated with the announcement and, if so, what was the cost of that event; (c) how many projects submitted by the City of Mississauga did not qualify for or were denied infrastructure or Recreational Infrastructure Canada program funding; (d) what were the details and locations of the projects that did not qualify or were denied funding; and (e) for each project that was denied funding, what is the detailed explanation of the reasons for the denial?

Q-452² — October 18, 2010 — — With regard to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and Settlement Agencies: (a) how many agencies were opened per calendar year since January 1, 2006 to present; (b) what was the total amount of transfer funding provided for the opening of agencies per calendar year from February 7, 2006 to present; (c) how many agencies have been opened since February 7, 2006; (d) what is the location of each new agency since February 7, 2006; (e) how many agencies have had their funding reduced or abolished since February 7, 2006; (f) how many agencies have had to close because of reduced or abolished federal funding; (g) what is the exact location of each closure since February 7, 2006; (h) what is the amount of funding provided to agencies in the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, broken down by province, per calendar year from February 7, 2006 to present; and (i) has CIC begun negotiating a new Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement as promised and, if not, why not and when will it begin these negotiations?

Q-453² — October 18, 2010 — — With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Building Canada Fund — Communities Component top-up in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Building Canada Fund — Major Infrastructure Component in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved?

Q-454² — October 18, 2010 — — With respect to the New Horizons for Seniors program: (a) how much funding has been allocated annually since the program began; (b) what is the breakdown of that funding (i) by province, (ii) by federal riding; (c) how was the funding allocated among the three funding types (Community Participation and Leadership, Capital Assistance, and Elder Abuse Awareness); (d) what was the criteria for funding these programs; (e) how many applications were rejected; (f) what criteria are used to ascertain project success; (g) who is on the review committee that approves projects; (h) how were the members of the project review committee selected; (i) what consultations took place to ensure the program has been running properly; (j) beyond the Human Resources and Skills Development Web site, what communications products were produced; and (k) what community facilities and equipment have been upgraded as a result of funding and how much did they each receive?

Q-455² — October 18, 2010 — — With regard to the expenses of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what was the total global amount spent on hospitality expenses by each Canadian embassy overseas; (b) how much has each Canadian embassy overseas spent on leasing expenses, catering services, restaurants, alcohol and beverages, bottled water, and petty cash; (c) how much has each Canadian embassy and consulate spent on advertising overseas; (d) what cuts have been made to DFAIT expenditures on Canadian missions overseas during the economic recession and what was the cut in expenditure for each embassy and consulate; (e) what companies have received sole source contracts to provide services for Canadian missions overseas; and (f) how much have Canadian diplomats spent on limousine services, private air services, executive class commercial air services, economy class commercial air services and car rentals?

Q-456² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the strategic review of federal departments, boards, agencies, and commissions: (a) what is the purpose of the strategic review of the 13 organizations; (b) what are the names of federal departments, boards, agencies, and commissions currently under the review; and (c) when will the results of the strategic review be available to the public?

Q-459² — October 19, 2010 — — With respect to M-426, adopted in the second session of the 39th Parliament, calling on the government to respond to the challenges faced by Canadians with rare diseases and disorders, has the government: (a) established a definition for serious rare diseases; (b) examined options, including the possible creation of a specific fund, to improve access to rare disease treatments, building on recent work undertaken by federal, provincial and territorial governments under the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy; (c) considered the establishment of a multi-stakeholder advisory body, including treaters and patients, to recommend treatment access for life-threatening or serious rare disorders, based on scientific standards and social values; (d) explored options to consider national and international expert advice in developing criteria for treating patients based on scientific evidence and patient impact, and to link these activities with ongoing post-market monitoring of real world drug safety and effectiveness; (e) considered options to encourage research and development into treatments for rare diseases and other unmet health needs; (f) considered internationally accepted standards for conduct of clinical trials in rare disorders appropriate for the challenges inherent to very small patient populations; (g) considered how Health Canada’s work on a progressive licensing framework could provide appropriate support to the design of clinical trials for very small patient populations and appropriate review of evidence submitted from these trials; and (h) reported to the House the progress accomplished as of October 19, 2010?

Q-460² — October 19, 2010 — — With respect to section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, for each application made under this section since its initial coming into force until today, how many days have passed between the date in which the application was made and the date on which the offender was either granted or denied parole?

Q-461² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the Recreational Infrastructure Canada program (RINC), since May 2009 to present: (a) for each of the 308 ridings, how many (i) projects have been approved, (ii) projects have been rejected, (iii) applications for projects have been submitted; (b) where was each approved project located and how much money did it receive from the program, broken down by province and riding; (c) what is the average amount of money allotted to approved projects; (d) for each of the rejected project applications, (i) where was the rejected project to be located, (ii) what was the total funding requested, (iii) what was the rationale for the rejection; (e) for approved projects, what is the average number of days from the start date of the project to (i) the date of disbursement of funds, (ii) the date the project was first publicly announced; (f) what is the average number of days between a project receiving approval and the signing of the contribution agreement; (g) what is the total cost of administering the RINC; and (h) how much funding remains (i) unallocated, (ii) undisbursed?

Q-462² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC): (a) what is the current total number of full- and part-time staff at the Department; and (b) what are the projected number of full- and part-time employees at HRSDC for fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012?

Q-463² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the Department of National Defence, what are the contents of every email sent from ministers' exempt staff to access to information staff between the dates of January 1, 2010 and March 30, 2010?

Q-464² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources, what are the contents of every email sent from ministers' exempt staff to access to information staff between the dates of January 1, 2010 and March 30, 2010?

Q-465² — October 19, 2010 — — What programs at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada are currently under program spending review?

Q-466² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development (HRSD) and the eight-month extension of Employment Insurance (EI) Pilot Project No. 11 (Pilot Project for Calculating Benefit Rate Based On Claimant's 14 Highest Weeks of Insurable Earnings (2)) starting October 23, 2010: (a) what projections are used by HRSD, Service Canada and Statistics Canada to determine the number of applicants for EI (excluding EI (Fishing)) for the EI Economic Region of Newfoundland and Labrador, broken down by divisions 1 to 9, for the eight-month period starting October 23, 2010; (b) how many applicants will receive an additional benefit rate as a result of qualifying for the calculation rate based on the 14 highest weeks of insurable earnings; and (c) what will be the approximate value of extra EI benefits paid out as a result of the extension of the calculation rate based on the 14 highest weeks of insurable earnings, broken down by divisions 1 to 9?

Q-467² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to Canada’s Economic Action Plan, what projects have been approved for funding in-part or in-full through Canada’s Economic Action Plan in the Riding of Avalon, including for each project (i) the location of the project, (ii) the name of the applicant, (iii) the amount of funding applied for, (iv) the amount of funding approved, (v) the approval date, (vi) the project title and description, (vii) whether the project is complete and, if not, the expected completion date?

Q-468² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and more specifically Pilot Project No. 11 (Pilot Project for Calculating Benefit Rate Based On Claimant’s 14 Highest Weeks of Insurable Earning (2)), through the Employment Insurance (EI) program: in the EI economic region of Newfoundland and Labrador, broken down by divisions 1 to 9 and by fiscal year for the duration of Pilot Project No. 11, (i) how many claimants applied for EI benefits (excluding EI (Fishing)), (ii) how many of those applying received an additional benefit rate as a result of qualifying for the calculation rate based on the 14 highest weeks of insurable earnings, (iii) what was the total value of extra EI benefits paid out as a result of the calculation using the 14 highest weeks of insurable earnings per fiscal year in each of the divisions 1 to 9?

Q-469² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the government’s August 2010 announcements that new units would be constructed on the grounds of existing federal penitentiaries administered by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as part of its implementation of the Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody): (a) how many new units are being built as part of this accommodation plan; (b) at which institutions will these new units be constructed; (c) what is the timeline, broken down annually, for the building of these new units at existing facilities; (d) how many offenders per unit are the new units designed to house; (e) what were the criteria for selecting the locations of the new units; (f) were the communities in which the facilities chosen for expansion are housed consulted about the planned expansion and, if so, when; (g) has a review of the impacts on host communities of expanding existing facilities been undertaken by CSC and, if so, what were the results; (h) what evidence does CSC have to support their claim that the prison expansion plan will ensure "tangible economic growth”; (i) what are the costs associated with the construction of the new units per year and over their projected life-cycle; (j) what are the costs associated with operating and maintaining the new units per year and over their projected life-cycle; and (k) over the next 20 years, is CSC considering the closure of any facility at which new units are being constructed and, if so, which facilities and what is the timeline for their closure?

Q-470² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the implementation of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime) and Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, for each Bill: (a) how many additional prisoners are projected to be housed in Correctional Service of Canada institutions over the next ten years, broken down annually; (b) what is the projected cost associated with building new infrastructure to absorb the influx of these additional prisoners over the next ten years, broken down annually; and (c) what is the projected cost associated with operating and managing these additional prisoners over the next ten years, broken down annually?

Q-471² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the project plan for regional complexes referred to in the February 6, April 27, and September 29, 2009 “CSC Report[s] on Transformation Priorities” that Correctional Services Canada (CSC) was to submit earlier this year: (a) how many regional complexes did CSC recommend building as part of this project plan and how many units did CSC recommend each regional complex house; (b) where did CSC recommend building these regional complexes as part of this project plan; (c) what were the criteria for the selection of proposed locations for these regional complexes; (d) what are the costs associated with construction of these regional complexes per year and over their projected life-cycle; (e) what are the costs associated with operating and maintaining these regional complexes per year and over their projected life-cycle; (f) how would the operating and maintenance cost for these new regional complexes be broken down by category; (g) what is the date recommended by CSC to begin implementing this project plan and when is it anticipated that these facilities will come online if their proposed timelines are followed; (h) does this project plan recommend the closure of existing penitentiaries operated and managed by CSC and, if so, which facilities has CSC recommended closing and by what date as part of this project plan; (i) what were the criteria for the selection of existing penitentiaries operated and managed by CSC to be closed as part of this project plan; and (j) how many additional staff, broken down by professional category, does CSC believe it will need to adequately manage these regional complexes and how does that compare to CSC’s current staffing?

Q-472² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) offender programming: (a) what offender programs, broken down by category, are currently offered by CSC, including for each program (i) the institutions at which they are offered, (ii) the number of spaces available, (iii) the annual cost of running the program; (b) does CSC evaluate the success of their offender programming and, if so, how; (c) what criteria and processes do CSC employ to select which offender programs are or will be offered at each institution; (d) what processes are employed to place offenders in programs; (e) do all offenders who request to take part in a program have access to it and, if not, why not; (f) do all offenders who are required to take part in specific programs as part of their Correctional Plans have access to them; (g) over the last ten years, broken down annually, how many offenders have had as part of their Correctional Plan the participation in CSC programming and in which programs where these offenders supposed to take part, broken down by category; (h) over the last ten years and broken down annually, how many offenders participated in programs that were required as part of their Correctional Plans; (i) if there is a discrepancy between the answers to (g) and (h), what accounts for it; (j) how much of the overall CSC budget has been spent on offender programming, broken down annually over the last ten years and how does that compare to CSC’s other spending categories; (k) over the next ten years, broken down annually, how much of the overall CSC budget will be spent on offender programming and how does that compare to planned spending in CSC’s other spending categories; (l) does CSC have the necessary staff to meet offender programming needs and, if not, what is being done to address this shortfall; and (m) over the next ten years, does CSC plan to expand the number and type of programs offered to offenders in order to meet the rehabilitation needs of the growing prison population and, if so, what are the details of this plan?

Q-473² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to government revenues and Vale, for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what was the total global amount of taxes paid by Vale to the Canadian treasury; and (b) what tax exemptions did Vale receive from the government?

Q-474² — October 19, 2010 — — With regard to the sale of federal land indicated by Halifax, Nova Scotia Parcel Identification Number 279968 on January 14, 2010: (a) what deed authorizes this transfer and why had it not been registered at the Registry of Deeds; (b) what policy or circumstances guided the decision to cede the title of a parcel of land belonging to the government; (c) what policy or circumstances informed the cost assessment of this parcel of land; and (d) who was responsible for this decision?

Q-475² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the Canadian International Development Agency: (a) what amount of Official Development Assistance is allocated to Sudan; (b) what specific regions in Sudan have received these funds; and (c) what specific sectors or programs are receiving these funds and what are they for?

Q-476² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the Canadian International Development Agency and the government's Child and Maternal Health Initiative: (a) how much has the government promised to contribute to the Initiative; (b) what percentage of the funds have already been spent on or earmarked for specific projects or programs; and (c) what percentage of the funds will be allocated to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria?

Q-477² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): (a) what amount of Official Development Assistance is allocated to Haiti; (b) what specific regions in Haiti have received these funds; (c) since when have these funds been allocated to Haiti; and (d) what is the status of the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund and the matching funds from CIDA?

Q-478² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to Canada’s involvement in United Nations' peacekeeping missions: (a) how many Canadian peacekeepers are deployed at present and to what locations; (b) how long have the peacekeepers in (a) been deployed to these areas; and (c) how much money does Canada contribute to United Nations peacekeeping missions?

Q-479² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the Lobster Marketing Initiative from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: (a) is the project still active and how much funding has been or will be spent during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 fiscal years; (b) how many fishermen have received funding or benefited directly from this Initiative; (c) did the program help to increase the export of Atlantic fishing products to Asian markets and, if so, how did it do this and what is its estimated impact; and (d) distributed by province, how many applications were made under the Initiative and how many of these were approved?

Q-480² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) investigation of cases of possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein: (a) for the 26 cases reassessed by the CRA as of June 10, 2010, what is the breakdown of the $5.2 million (i) in unpaid taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (b) how much of the $5.2 million has been collected; (c) how many of the 26 cases are under appeal; (d) how many of the 26 cases remain open; (e) in how many of the 26 cases has the CRA collected the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties owed; (f) for each case identified in (e) how much was collected (i) in taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (g) how many of the account holders in the 26 cases have made partial payment; (h) of the partial repayments made (i) what was the largest repayment, (ii) what was the smallest repayment, (iii) what was the average repayment; (i) how much does the CRA anticipate it has yet to collect (i) in taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (j) of the amounts of money contained in the Liechtenstein accounts declared to or discovered by the CRA, what was (i) the largest amount, (ii) the smallest amount, (iii) the average amount; (k) on what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein; (l) on what date did CRA begin its investigation; (m) on what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin; (n) of the 106 Canadians identified as having bank accounts in Liechtenstein, how many have (i) had their accounts audited, (ii) not had their accounts audited, (iii) had their accounts reassessed, (iv) not had their accounts reassessed, (v) been the subject of a compliance action, (vi) not been the subject of a compliance action; and (o) how many tax evasion charges have been laid?

Q-481² — October 20, 2010 — — What was the total amount of Economic Action Plan funding allocated for the fiscal year 2009-2010 within the constituency of Sudbury, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-482² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to Infrastructure Canada's programs: (a) under the Public Transit Fund (PTF), how much funding was committed for each province and how much funding was spent to date under the PTF; (b) under the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund, (i) to date, what applications for projects have been approved for funding, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) for each project, what was the economic benefit, (v) for each project, what is the anticipated completion date, (vi) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Border Infrastructure Fund, (i) to date, by province, what applications for projects have been approved for funding, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) for each project, what was the economic benefit, (v) for each project, what is the anticipated completion date, (vi) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (MRIF), (i) by province, how many municipalities submitted applications and how many projects were approved, (ii) for every fiscal year since the program was launched, up to and including the current fiscal year, how much funding has the MRIF disbursed and to whom, (iii) for each approved project, what was the municipality’s contribution; (iv) were consulting companies hired to support program delivery and, if so, what are their names; (e) under the Infrastructure Canada Program (ICP), (i) by province, how many applications were submitted, (ii) by province and riding, how many applications were approved, (iii) for every fiscal year since the program was launched, up to and including the current fiscal year, how much funding has the ICP disbursed and to whom, (iv) for each project, what was the municipality’s contribution, (v) were consulting companies hired to support program delivery and, if so, what are their names, (vii) when is the anticipated sunset of the program; (f) under the Building Canada Fund - Communities Component, (i) to date, by province and riding, what applications have been approved, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (g) under the Building Canada Fund - Major Infrastructure Component, (i) to date, by province and riding, what applications have been approved, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) for each project, what is the anticipated completion date, (v) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (h) under the Public Private Partnership Fund, (i) to date, how many project applications have been submitted, (ii) to date, by province and riding, how many projects have been approved, (iii) for each project, who are the partners involved, including private companies, and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iv) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, including private companies, (v) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (i) under the Gateways and Border Crossing Fund, (i) to date, by province and riding, what applications have been approved, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner’s contribution, including the government’s contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) for each project, what is the anticipated completion date, (v) how much funding will be committed to the Atlantic Gateway Initiative and the Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative during fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, (vi) how much funding remains available in the Fund, (vii) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (j) under the Gas Tax Fund, (i) to date, by province and territory, how much funding has been committed and how much funding has been dispersed, (ii) which municipalities received funding under this initiative and when, (iii) what are the funding criteria under this initiative; (k) by province, how much funding was reimbursed to each municipality under the GST rebate program; (l) how much funding was provided by Infrastructure Canada to partner federal departments during fiscal year 2007-2008 to date; and (m) how much funding was spent to promote each Infrastructure Canada program since fiscal year 2007-2008 to date?

Q-483² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the hospitality expenses of government agencies, boards and commissions, for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) how much was spent on leasing expenses, catering services, restaurants, coffee and beverages, bottled water and petty cash; (b) how much was spent on overseas travel, (i) in which countries, (ii) on what dates did these trips occur, (iii) what was the purpose of each trip, (iv) what was the purpose of each expense; (c) what companies received sole source contracts to provide hospitality services; and (d) how much was spent on limousine services, private air service, executive class commercial air service, economy class commercial air service and car rentals?

Q-484² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the government's expenditures related to the 19th Commonwealth Games: (a) for each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, what was the total amount spent on preparation of Canadian athletes by each federal department, agency or commission; (b) for each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, what was the total amount spent on sporting equipment for Canadian athletes participating in the 19th Commonwealth Games by each federal department, agency or commission; (c) what was the total amount spent by each federal organization to support the Canadian official delegation visit and how much was spent on (i) hospitality expenses, (ii) travelling expenses, (iii) accommodation, (iv) alcohol, (v) beverages, (vi) food; (d) what was the total amount spent to promote Canada during the 19th Commonwealth Games; (e) what are the names of the people who were part of Canada’s official delegation to the 19th Commonwealth Games; and (f) what private sector company representatives were part of Canada's official delegation and how much money did the government pay for their trips?

Q-485² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the government’s aid funding for Pakistan in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and for every project funded, what is: (a) the name of the project; (b) the location of the project within the country of destination; (c) the amount of funding received by the project broken down as (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan; and (d) the department where the funding originated?

Q-486² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the government’s aid funding for Haiti in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, for every project funded, what is: (a) the name of the project; (b) the location of the project within the country of destination; (c) the amount of funding received by the project broken down as (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan; and (d) the department where the funding originated?

Q-487² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the government’s aid funding for Afghanistan in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, for every project funded, what is: (a) the name of the project; (b) the location of the project within the country of destination; (c) the amount of funding received by the project broken down as (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan; and (d) the department where the funding originated?

Q-488² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to efforts to have Richmond Hill’s David Dunlop Observatory declared a National Heritage Site: (a) what are the details of every memo given to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Canadian Heritage regarding this topic; (b) what are the titles and subjects of all memos and reports Canadian Heritage has pertaining to this file; and (c) what are the titles and subjects of all memos and reports the Department of Finance has pertaining to this file?

Q-489² — October 20, 2010 — — With regard to the recent request by the Department of National Defence for bids for new fire trucks: (a) how many companies bid; (b) how many of these companies were from Canada; (c) what was the winning bid; and (d) why wasn’t a longer tendering period used for such a large procurement?

Q-491² — October 21, 2010 — — With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and Employment Insurance (EI) benefits for clients in Newfoundland and Labrador, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008, up to and including the most recent information available for the current fiscal year, and broken down by divisions 1 to 9: (a) how many clients received financial EI benefits while reporting that they were attending a training institution or training course; and (b) how many clients that were approved to receive or were receiving benefits had their claims suspended or terminated because they were attending a training institution or training course?

Q-492² — October 21, 2010 — — With respect to the Canada Revenue Agency, for each calendar year from 2005 to 2009: (a) how much was owing in overdue accounts; (b) how much has been recovered from overdue accounts; and (c) how much has been written off from overdue accounts?

Q-493² — October 21, 2010 — — With regard to applications for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits, for each calendar year from 2006 to 2009, broken down by province: (a) what is the average response time once an application has been submitted; (b) what is the average delay between receiving approval to request a reconsideration and receiving the response; (c) what is the average delay between being authorized to make an appeal before the Office of the Commissioner of Review Tribunals (OCRT) and receiving the decision; and (d) what is the average delay between receiving the right to appeal and receiving the final decision from the OCRT?

Q-494² — October 21, 2010 — — With regard to the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative (APGCI): (a) what activities happened on this project during fiscal years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011; (b) how much project funding was provided or will be provided to each Western province under APGCI, broken down by riding, during fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; (c) what federal departments and agencies have been involved in the realization of the APGCI since 2007 until the present; (d) what are the funding and full-time equivalent projections for APGCI for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (e) what private companies and consultants received project funding under the APGCI since fiscal year 2007-2008, up to and including the current fiscal year; (f) how will the costs of the APGCI projects be shared between the federal and provincial governments; (g) are there any foreign investments made for APGCI related projects and, if so, what foreign companies made investments for these projects; (h) when is the APGCI scheduled to sunset; (i) what is the federal government's policy position on the future of this initiative, taking into account the global economic recession; (j) did the global economic crisis result in changes to the implementation of the Atlantic Gateway Initiative and, if so, what were they; (k) which countries are Canada’s main competitors and what did the government do to secure Canada's advantages and leading positions; (l) how many trade missions took place in relation to APGCI, where did these take place and how much did they cost, from fiscal year 2007-2008 up to and including the current fiscal year; and (m) what are the names of the Canadian representatives from both the public and private sector organizations who took part in trade missions in relation to APGCI since 2007 to 2010, and by which organization, including government, was their participation funded?

Q-495² — October 21, 2010 — — With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario): (a) is the Agency subject to the ongoing strategic review and, if so, what is the purpose of this review of FedDev Ontario; (b) how much project funding was allocated by riding in the Ontario region (i) during fiscal year 2009-2010, (ii) to date during the current fiscal year; (c) under the government's Economic Action Plan, how much funding was allocated to FedDev Ontario and how many projects did FedDev Ontario fund using this money; (d) what are the funding and full-time equivalent projections for FedDev Ontario for each of the fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (e) how much core and project funding has been allocated to each Community Development Agency in Ontario (i) during fiscal year 2009-2010, (ii) to date during the current fiscal year; (f) how much funding was allocated to support operations of the FedDev Ontario office in Ottawa during each of the fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; (g) how many staff were assigned to work in Ottawa's office (i) during fiscal year 2009-2010, (ii) to date during the current fiscal year; and (h) what programs and initiatives will sunset in 2010-2011 and what new programs will be launched in 2011-2012?

Q-496² — October 21, 2010 — — With regard to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation's Economic Action Plan funding for affordable housing, for every project funded: (a) what is the project's name; (b) where is the project located; (c) from what program did the project's funding come; (d) what was the project's federal funding component, broken down by (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan with conditions; (e) what amount of funding came from organizations or governments other than the federal government; (f) what was the amount actually spent; and (g) what is or was the expiry date of the funding?

Q-497² — October 21, 2010 — — With regard to the employment in the public service: (a) distributed by province, how many new full-time equivalents (FTEs) were hired by each federal department, agency and crown corporation during fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; (b) do departments expect to make cuts to funding for FTEs as a result of the economic recession; (c) how many employees were given permission to run for political office; (d) what criteria does the Public Service Commission (PSC) use to ensure fair hiring processes; (e) how much time does it take each department, agency, and crown corporation to complete hiring processes; (f) how many staff members of the PSC who are responsible for hiring and staffing services are located in each province and territory; and (g) what organization is responsible for staffing and hiring processes in departmental branches outside of the National Capital Region?

Q-498² — October 21, 2010 — — With regard to the government's hiring of temporary and full-time employees through recruitment agencies: (a) what are the names of agencies accredited to provide staffing services to the government; (b) how many people were hired temporarily and permanently through recruitment agencies by each federal department, agency or crown corporation for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year; (c) for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year, how much money did each department, agency and crown corporation pay to recruitment agencies for each employee hired; (d) what is the role of the human resources branches of each federal department and agency when the hiring process is given to a third party; (e) why does the government use external organizations for internal hiring processes and what rules regulate this process; and (f) for each department, how many people who were hired on both short and long-term contracts through recruitment agencies were later hired on a permanent basis?

Q-499² — October 21, 2010 — — With respect to Kevin MacLeod's position as Canadian Secretary to the Queen, as of September 20, 2010: (a) what was the total cost associated with the position, broken down by the amount spent on (i) travel, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) hospitality, (vi) gifts, (vii) all other expenses; (b) what government department or agency paid for the expenses in (a); (c) what are the names of the people who travelled with Kevin MacLeod in his capacity as Canadian Secretary to the Queen; and (d) for the people in (c), what was the amount spent on (i) travel, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) hospitality, (vi) gifts, (vii) all other expenses?

Q-500² — October 21, 2010 — — With respect to the recent visit of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh: (a) which Members of Parliament or Senators were invited to any functions related to the visit; (b) which Members of Parliament or Senators received additional invitations; and (c) how many additional invitations were sent to each Member of Parliament and Senator in (b)?

Q-501² — October 22, 2010 — — With respect to the 2007 report by the Advisor on Healthy Children and Youth, "Reaching for the Top", identified by ISBN 978-0-662-46455-6, what is the status of each of the recommendations made in Chapter 10?

Q-502² — October 22, 2010 — — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency, for each calendar year from 2006 to 2009: (a) what is the total funding that the Agency requested from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) or the Privy Council Office (PCO) for advertising purposes; (b) how much funding did the Agency receive in response to these requests; and (c) how much funding did the Agency receive from the PMO or PCO for advertising ordered by the PMO or PCO?

Q-503² — October 22, 2010 — — With regard to the construction of a school in Attawapiskat: (a) what is the status of the project to build a new school on the reserve; (b) when was the last time Attawapiskat had a permanent school facility; and (c) what are the government's reasons for delaying the construction of a new facility?

Q-504² — October 22, 2010 — — With regard to NGOs funded by the Canadian International Development Agency, what is the total amount of money spent on family planning and maternal health for (i) the current fiscal year, (ii) the last five fiscal years?

Q-505² — October 22, 2010 — — With regard to the transfer of Saint Anne's Hospital to the Government of Quebec: (a) what is the anticipated benefit to Canadian veterans; (b) what are the cost savings to taxpayers; and (c) how much does the government anticipate that this transfer will cost?

Q-506² — October 22, 2010 — — With respect to the National Do Not Call List (DNCL), as of September 30, 2010: (a) what is the total number of fines that have been imposed to date by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC); (b) what is the total value of fines that have been imposed to date; (c) what is the total number of fines that have been paid to date; (d) what is the total value of fines that have been paid to date; and (e) has the CRTC forwarded information on violations of the National DNCL to the RCMP for further investigation?

Q-507² — October 22, 2010 — — With regard to the government’s May 21, 2010 announcement concerning Nutrition North Canada: (a) has Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) completed any studies providing evidence that delivery of the subsidy through retailers rather than Canada Post will be more cost-effective and efficient and, if so, (i) how was this shown, (ii) on what dates were the studies completed, (iii) what are the titles of these studies, (iv) what are the names, positions and qualifications held by the authors; (b) has INAC completed any studies providing evidence that delivery of the subsidy through retailers will make healthy food more accessible and affordable in isolated Northern communities and, if so, (i) how was this shown, (ii) on what dates were the studies completed, (iii) what are the titles of these studies, (iv) what are the names, positions and qualifications held by the authors; (c) has INAC completed any analyses of the effect of proposed program cost-containment measures on the price of healthy food and on food security in isolated Northern communities and, if so, (i) what did they show, (ii) on what dates were the studies completed, (iii) what are the titles of these studies, (iv) what are the names, positions and qualifications held by the authors; (d) has INAC completed any analyses of the impact on demand and therefore on program expenditures of Health Canada activities under Nutrition North Canada to promote the consumption of healthy food in isolated Northern communities and, if so, (i) what did they show, (ii) on what dates were the studies completed, (iii) what are the titles of these studies, (iv) what are the names, positions and qualifications held by the authors; (e) has INAC completed any analyses of the impact on food prices and food security in isolated Northern communities resulting from the removal on October 3, 2010 of most non-perishable food from eligibility for the Food Mail Program in isolated Northern communities with marine service and, if so, (i) what did they show, (ii) on what dates were the studies completed, (iii) what are the titles of these studies, (iv) what are the names, positions and qualifications held by the authors; (f) what measures are included in Nutrition North Canada to support the use of sealift and winter roads for the transportation of non-perishable food and non-food items to isolated Northern communities; (g) how will the per kilogram subsidy rates by community for perishable food provided under Nutrition North Canada compare, on the same basis, to the subsidy that was provided by INAC to Canada Post; (h) what are INAC's projected administrative costs for Nutrition North Canada, and how do these compare to the department's on-going administrative costs for the Food Mail Program and the government-subsidized portion of Canada Post's administrative costs; (i) what is the projected number of INAC employees required to administer Nutrition North Canada compared to the number that have administered the Food Mail Program; (j) does INAC intend to continue using the Revised Northern Food Basket as a costing tool to determine the impact of Nutrition North Canada on food prices in isolated Northern communities and, if so, does it intend to continue location price gathering by personnel not affiliated with the recipients of the subsidy; (k) does INAC intend to show retailers' costs for shipping eligible perishable foods to isolated Northern communities; and (l) will INAC present the subsidy under Nutrition North Canada in a way that makes it comparable to the present postage rate for perishable food under the Food Mail Program and, if so, how?

Q-508² — October 22, 2010 — — With regard to the review of the Food Mail Program: (a) what were the total costs of the review including salaries, travel and contracts to consultants; (b) which consultants were contracted for work on the review, what were their qualifications and what are the titles of their studies; (c) what percentage of participants in the engagement sessions on the three reform options for the Food Mail Program were in favour of changing to a retailer-delivered subsidy and what percentage were in favour of retaining the current model of delivery through Canada Post; and (d) who did the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs or the Minister of Health meet with about changes to the Food Mail Program and, for each meeting, (i) what are the names of all the individuals who were present, (ii) what were the dates and locations, (iii) what was discussed?

Q-509² — October 22, 2010 — — With regard to government expenditures in Labrador during fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) what is the value of (i) each grant, contribution, repayable contribution, loan, or contract for the supply of goods or services made or awarded to any group, business or organization located in Labrador, (ii) each grant, contribution, repayable contribution, loan, or contract for the supply of goods or services made or awarded to any group, business or organization located outside Labrador but for activities carried out within Labrador, (iii) each transfer payment or other payment to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for work or activities primarily carried out in Labrador, a municipality in Labrador, or a First Nations, Inuit or Innu local government in Labrador; and (b) for each case in (a), (i) what was the specific government department or agency which made the grant, contribution, repayable contribution, loan, contract for the supply of goods or services, or transfer or other payment, (ii) on what date was it made or awarded by the department or agency, (iii) under which program, policy or authority was it made or awarded?

Q-510² — October 22, 2010 — — With respect to interdepartmental committees, is there or has there ever been an interdepartmental consultation or communication committee whose membership includes the Department of Environment, the Department of National Defence and/or the Department of Justice and that dealt with contamination of the soil or water table in Valcartier, Quebec, or contamination of property belonging to Canadian Arsenal (Industrie Valcartier Inc./SNC Tech Inc.) and, if so: (a) what is or was the nature of this committee; (b) what is or was its mandate; (c) what were its objectives; (d) which other departments, if any, sat on this committee; (e) who were the individuals sitting on the committee; (f) did the committee’s membership change at any point and, if so, who was added or removed; and (g) are there any reports on the committee’s activities and, if so, (i) to whom were the reports sent, (ii) were the reports sent to the legal services units of the departments involved, (iii) when were the reports sent to the departments’ legal services units, (iv) who asked for the reports to be sent to the departments’ legal services units?

Q-511² — October 22, 2010 — — With regard to the burial or discharge into the environment of chemicals in Valcartier, Quebec, does the Department of National Defence have any documentation establishing knowledge of the burial or discharge into the environment of chemicals in various locations in Quebec and Canada and, if so, (i) are there records indicating the locations of the burial or discharge sites and the substances that were buried or discharged and, if so, what substances were buried or discharged at each of the documented sites?

Q-512² — October 22, 2010 — — With respect to analyses of the water supply system conducted at CFB Valcartier as of 1970: (a) what level of trichloroethylene (TCE) has been found for each year as of 1970 and for each well; (b) has the quality of the drinking water been assessed; (c) how often have analyses of this system been conducted; (d) did these analyses include the chemical characteristics of the water; and (e) what entity is responsible for maintaining and monitoring the findings?

Q-513² — October 22, 2010 — — With respect to the decontamination of the former property of Canadian Arsenal in Valcartier, Quebec, has the Department of National Defence or another department received a request for funding by the former operator of this factory, SNC Tech. Inc., its parent corporation or a sister corporation of the SNC-Lavalin Group and, if so: (a) when was the request received; (b) who received the request; (c) what was the amount of funding awarded; (d) what documents were submitted in support of the request; (e) on what dates was the funding allocated by the government; (f) on what date was the funding distributed; (g) what was the method of payment; (h) to which company was the funding paid; and (i) who performed quality control of both the proposed and accomplished work?

Q-514² — October 25, 2010 — — With regard to Canadian child labour laws: (a) what is the government’s policy regarding ratification of International Labour Organization Convention No. 138 (C138) concerning the minimum age of admission to employment; and (b) has the government studied the impacts of ratification of C138 and the associated costs?

Q-515² — October 25, 2010 — — With regard to the motion adopted by the unanimous consent of the House of Commons on November 25, 2008, calling on the government to develop a violence prevention strategy: (a) has the government developed such a strategy and, if so, is it publicly available; (b) does the government have other strategies to prevent violence against women and, if so, what are the details of these strategies; and (c) if no such strategy has been developed, does the government plan to develop one?

Q-516² — October 25, 2010 — — With regard to the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor): (a) what is the purpose of the ongoing strategic review of CanNor; (b) how much project funding was allocated by territory and by riding in the Northern region for each fiscal year since 2007-2008, up to and including the current fiscal year, specifying which departments or agencies were responsible for funding administration and program delivery; (c) how much funding was allocated to CanNor under the Economic Action Plan; (d) how many projects were funded by CanNor under the Economic Action Plan; (e) what are the funding and full-time equivalent projections for CanNor for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (f) how much core and project funding has been allocated to each Regional Economic Development Agency by territory for each fiscal year since 2007-2008, up to and including the current fiscal year; (g) how much funding was allocated to support CanNor's operations office in Ottawa during each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year; (h) how many staff were assigned to work in the office in Ottawa during each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year; and (i) what programs or initiatives will sunset in fiscal year 2010-2011 and will any new programs be launched in fiscal year 2011-2012?

Q-517² — October 25, 2010 — — With regard to the regulation of oil and gas development in the Northwest Territories and the clean-up of the Pointed Mountain gas production facility near Fort Laird, in detail: (a) what is the current status of the clean-up of the Pointed Mountain gas facility; (b) if the clean-up is on hold, what steps are being taken to prevent contamination of the environment near the site; (c) why have several clean-up deadline extensions been issued for this gas field; (d) what consultations have been conducted with and what information has been provided to local First Nations concerning the clean-up of the Pointed Mountain gas field; and (e) on what date does the government expect the clean-up of this gas field to begin?

Q-518² — October 25, 2010 — — With regard to Building Canada Fund (BCF) projects in the riding of Mississauga South, what is the total number of jobs created or sustained by each project, according to reports submitted to the government pursuant to Schedule "C" of the BCF Communities Component Agreement?

Q-519² — October 25, 2010 — — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure projects in the riding of Mississauga South, what is the total number of jobs created or sustained by each project, according to reports submitted to the government pursuant to Schedule "H" of the Recreational Infrastructure Funding Agreement?

Q-520² — October 25, 2010 — — With regard to Building Canada Fund (BCF) projects in the riding of Mississauga—Erindale, what is the total number of jobs created or sustained by each project, according to reports submitted to the government pursuant to Schedule "C" of the BCF Communities Component Agreement?

Q-521² — October 25, 2010 — — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure projects in the riding of Mississauga—Erindale, what is the total number of jobs created or sustained by each project, according to reports submitted to the government pursuant to Schedule "H" of the Recreational Infrastructure Funding Agreement?

Q-522² — October 25, 2010 — — With respect to the reception at Rideau Hall on Friday, October 1, 2010, following the Governor General’s installation: (a) which Members of Parliament and Senators were invited to the reception; (b) which Members of Parliament and Senators received additional invitations; (c) how many additional invitations were sent to each Member of Parliament and Senator in (b); and (d) what are the names and titles of the persons responsible for compiling the guest list?

Q-523² — October 26, 2010 — — With respect to the multiculturalism programs administered by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, since 2006: (a) how many applications for the Community Historical Recognition Program (CHRP) grants and contributions have been (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) rejected; (b) for each application to the CHRP that was approved, (i) what was the name of the applicant organization, (ii) how much money was given to the organization, (iii) what was the nature of the approved program or event; (c) for each application to the CHRP that was rejected, (i) what was the name of the applicant organization, (ii) how much money did the organization request in its application, (iii) what was the nature of the rejected program or event, (iv) what was the reason for the rejection, (v) how was the rejection communicated to the group in question; (d) how many organizations in (c) submitted further applications related to any program or event following an initial rejection and how many of these subsequent applications received approval; (e) how many applications for the Multiculturalism Grants and Contributions Program have been (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) rejected; (f) for each application to the Multiculturalism Grants and Contributions Program that was approved, (i) what was the name of the applicant organization, (ii) how much money was given to the organization, (iii) what was the nature of the approved program or event; (g) for each application to the Multiculturalism Grants and Contributions Program that was rejected, (i) what was the name of the applicant organization, (ii) how much money did the organization request in its application, (iii) what was the nature of the rejected program or event, (iv) what was the reason for the rejection, (v) how was the rejection communicated to the group in question; and (h) how many organizations in (g) submitted further applications related to any program or event following an initial rejection and how many of these subsequent applications received approval?

Q-524 — October 26, 2010 — — With respect to the Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner's contribution, including the government's contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component, in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner's contribution, including the government's contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component top-up, in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner's contribution, including the government's contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Building Canada Fund – Major Infrastructure Component, in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner's contribution, including the government's contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner's contribution, including the government's contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, (i) to date, what is the name and nature of each approved project, (ii) for each project, who are the partners involved and what is each partner's contribution, including the government's contribution, (iii) for each project, how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (iv) what criteria were used to determine which projects were approved?

Q-525 — October 26, 2010 — — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and tax treaties: (a) how many Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) has Canada signed that meet Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) standards in relation to the exchange of tax information; (b) with which countries has Canada completed a TIEA, and with which countries are negotiations on a TIEA underway; (c) following the signing of TIEAs, what information (i) has Canada requested and from which countries, (ii) has Canada received, from which countries and what are its consequences on the federal treasury; (d) how many tax treaties have been renegotiated to meet the OECD standard and with which countries; (e) how many tax treaties remain to be renegotiated to meet the OECD standard and with which countries; (f) in detail, how has the renegotiation of tax treaties affected the flow of information between Canada and other governments concerning tax avoidance by Canadian individuals and corporations; and (g) what have been the effects of the new TIEAs and renegotiated tax treaties on the federal treasury?

Q-526 — October 26, 2010 — — With regard to the corporate operational environment of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) what was or is the CRA budget for the auditing and enforcement of the tax implications of international financial transactions by Canadian individuals and corporations with offshore accounts, investments and holdings in each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; (b) how many full-time equivalent professionals were employed by the CRA for auditing and enforcement of the tax implications of international financial transactions by Canadians individuals and corporations with offshore accounts, investments and holdings in each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; (c) what was the net fiscal impact of the activities of CRA’s professional auditing and enforcement staff in terms of recovery of tax revenue from Canadian individuals and corporations with offshore accounts, investments and holdings in each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; and (d) what is the target for or expected impact of the activities of CRA’s professional auditing and enforcement staff in terms of recovery of tax revenue from Canadian individuals and corporations with offshore accounts, investments and holdings in fiscal year 2010-2011?

Q-528² — October 27, 2010 — — With regard to charities that issued tax receipts under tax shelter gifting arrangements and all such receipts that were disallowed by the Canada Revenue Agency: (a) what was the name of each charity that issued disallowed tax receipts; and (b) what was the dollar value of disallowed tax receipts issued by each charity in (a)?

Q-529² — October 27, 2010 — — With regard to security spending for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics: (a) within the overall security budget, what was the total portion of the budget funded by the government in dollars and as a percentage; (b) what amount of the overall security budget was allocated to the RCMP; (c) what amount of the overall security budget was allotted to government departments and agencies other than the RCMP, specifying (i) the name of the department or agency, (ii) the amount of funding it received, (iii) the reason for or purpose of the funding; (d) what is a breakdown by category or kind of expenditure of the RCMP’s security budget, including an explanation of the reason for or purpose of the expenditures in each category; (e) at the end of the Olympics, what amount of the RCMP security budget (i) remained unused, (ii) remained unused in each of the categories identified in (d); (f) what about the budgeting process explains any discrepancy identified in (e) between the amount budgeted and the amount spent; and (g) how will any remaining funds be used or reallocated?

Q-530² — October 27, 2010 — — With respect to the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) contract for Engineering and Technical Services (ETS): (a) for each task to be completed under this contract, did the contractor perform the task as stipulated in the contract and, (i) if not, for each of the uncompleted tasks, what are the reasons for which the tasks were not completed and what are the details of the paragraphs of the contract that were changed, (ii) if yes, when did the Department confirm the work had been completed for each task; (b) what measures did the Department put in place to ensure that the contractor respected the contract; (c) has the contract already been audited; (d) how many reports did the contractor provide with a progress update on the tasks; (e) when were the reports in (d) presented to the contracting authority and what were their titles; (f) who was responsible for monitoring and approving the transition from the former contractor to the current contractor; (g) what measures were taken by the contracting authority to verify progress on outstanding tasks; (h) did the contractor inform PWGSC of its staffing plans, which included using people hired by the former contractor; (i) ten business days after the contract’s start date, (i) how many CVs had been provided, (ii) what were the names of the people suggested by the contractor and how many of them then worked on the contract; (j) was the ETS contract changed and, if yes, what changes were made and on what dates; (k) was the contractor paid for all the services provided before the end of the transition period; (l) regarding the drafting process for the request for proposal, (i) what is the detailed explanation of the process and the milestone dates, (ii) who were the public servants who participated in drafting the request for proposal; (m) regarding the proposal evaluation process, (i) what is the detailed explanation of the process, (ii) what exactly does the “reconfirmation” step consist of, (iii) who were the public servants who participated in evaluating the proposals and approving the choice of contractor; (n) what are the names of the people or specialized companies that participated in drafting the request for proposal and how were these people or businesses selected; (o) what are the names of the people or specialized companies that participated in evaluating the proposals and how were these people or businesses selected; (p) what are the names of the people or specialized companies that participated in the contracting process and how were these people or businesses selected; (q) did the evaluation documents and relevant computer files remain in the possession and under the control of public servants during (i) the drafting of the request for proposal, (ii) the evaluation of proposals, (iii) the awarding of the contract; (r) can the Department confirm that it still has all the documents in (q) in its possession; (s) regarding the services of a fairness monitor for this contract, (i) who made the decision not to use the services of a fairness monitor for this contract, (ii) when was this decision made, (iii) for what reasons was a fairness monitor not retained; (t) as to a forensic audit, (i) who decided not to refer this file for a forensic audit after allegations of interference and conflict of interest were raised, (ii) when was this decision made and for what reasons; (u) did the office of the Minister of PWGSC, the Minister himself, or his deputy minister have discussions with public servants regarding the content of the request for proposals for ETS, the evaluation of the proposals or the contracting process and, if applicable, (i) what was the purpose of these discussions, (ii) who instigated the discussions, (iii) when did these discussions take place; (v) during the period from February 6, 2006, to June 24, 2008, did the Minister of PWGSC announce he was in a conflict of interest and, if yes, (i) when and with respect to what file, (ii) what was the nature of the conflict of interest; and (w) did PWGSC require that the references submitted by each of the bidders be checked and, if applicable, (i) who was responsible for carrying out the reference checks, (ii) when were the checks done for each of the bidders, (iii) who identified the mention of a company associated with the bidder, (iv) what were the reasons for approving a bid with references to an associated company, (v) was Innovapost Inc. identified in one of the bids?

Q-531² — October 28, 2010 — — With respect to the government’s Economic Action Plan: (a) for each project or program that received funding, (i) what was its name, (ii) what was its location, specifying the city, riding, and province, (iii) what was its total cost, (iv) what was the federal contribution, (v) what amount of the federal contribution has been delivered to date, (vi) how many full-time jobs did it create, (vii) how many part-time jobs did it create, (viii) what company or companies were contracted in association with the program or project, specifying the amount of funding each received for its services, (ix) were the contracts awarded in association with the project or program sole-sourced or open to competition, (x) will it meet the government’s completion deadline and, if not, why; (b) was the government’s approval of any project or program subsequently withdrawn and, if so, why; and (c) were any of the projects which the government had approved for funding subsequently cancelled and, if so, why?

Q-532² — October 28, 2010 — — With respect to the government’s use of consultants and employment agencies: (a) what was the total amount spent on consultants and employment agencies during fiscal year 2009-2010; (b) what is the projected total amount that will be spent on consultants and employment agencies during fiscal year 2010-2011; (c) how much did each department or agency spend on consultants and employment agencies during fiscal year 2009-2010; (d) which consulting firms and employment agencies received contracts from each department or agency during fiscal year 2009-2010; and (e) for each contract in (d), (i) was it sole-sourced or awarded following an open competition, (ii) what was its value or amount, (iii) for what services was it granted, (iv) what was its duration?

Q-533² — October 28, 2010 — — With respect to the renovations being undertaken on Parliament Hill: (a) in what year did the current round of renovations begin; (b) what is the total amount spent on the current round of renovations to date; (c) what is the projected completion date of all renovations; (d) what is the projected final cost of all renovations; and (e) since the current round of renovations began, what firms have received contracts to perform work on Parliament Hill, identifying (i) the amount of the contract, (ii) the services to be provided under the contract, (iii) the start and end dates of the contract, (iv) whether the contract was awarded through open competition or sole-sourced?

Q-534² — October 28, 2010 — — With regard to paragraph 3(1)(c) of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act: (a) what is the procedure for imposing penalties on contractors and where are those procedures outlined; (b) how many contractors were penalized under this provision between January 1, 2005 to October 26, 2010; (c) did any contractors fail to pay the penalty and, if so, (i) how many, (ii) did Human Resources and Skills Development Canada pursue further action to collect the penalty; (d) were any contractors who were not penalized investigated and found to be in violation of the Act; and (e) when and where were the procedures for imposing penalties published?

Q-535² — October 28, 2010 — — With regard to all e-mail correspondence between Ministers’ exempt staff and staff at the Department of Industry which occurred between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2010, excluding all matters which are in their nature secret, for each e-mail: (a) what are its contents; (b) what are the names of the (i) sender, (ii) recipients; and (c) on what date was it sent?

Q-536 — October 28, 2010 — — With regard to travel to Israel by Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and staff, for the period from January 1, 2010 to present, for each trip: (a) what were the dates; (b) what are the names of all Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and staff who travelled; (c) what was the purpose; (d) what was the itinerary; (e) what are the names and roles of all persons from Canada (other than Government of Canada employees) who accompanied the delegation at any point; (f) what was the total cost broken down by (i) air travel, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diem, (iv) meals, (v) hospitality, (vi) other expenses; and (g) who paid for the travel-related expenses in (f)?

Q-537² — October 28, 2010 — — With regard to Section 74 of the Indian Act, is there a policy document, directive, guideline or other documentation that the Department uses to apply the Minister’s authority?

Q-538² — October 28, 2010 — — With regard to all e-mail correspondence between ministers’ exempt staff and staff at the Department of Public Works and Government Services which occurred between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, excluding all matters which are in their nature secret, for each e-mail: (a) what are its contents; (b) what are the names of the (i) sender, (ii) recipients; and (c) on what date was it sent?

Q-539² — October 28, 2010 — — With regard to Health Canada funding and the allocation of full-time equivalents (FTEs): (a) what is the number of FTEs allocated by the Department in each province and territory, including the Department's headquarters in the National Capital Region, each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year; (b) how much funding was spent to support operations in each province and territory, including the Department’s headquarters in the National Capital Region, each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year; (c) what is the number of FTEs allocated in each province and territory with respect to the delivery of First Nations and Inuit health programs and services, each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year; (d) what are the names of the projects and how much money was committed to each of those projects by Health Canada as part of the Economic Action Plan; and (e) why, as stated in the 2010-11 business plan, is the Department projecting a decrease in FTEs for 2011-2012 and a further decrease in 2012-2013?

Q-540² — October 28, 2010 — — With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario) and its partner agencies and all e-mail and any other written correspondence which occurred between January 1, 2008 and October 31, 2010, excluding all matters which are in their nature secret: (a) for each correspondence, including e-mails, between ministers’ exempt staff and departmental staff at FedDev Ontario, (i) what are its contents, (ii) what are the names of the sender and recipients, (iii) on what date was it sent; (b) for each correspondence, including e-mails, between ministers’ exempt staff working at FedDev Ontario and departmental staff at FedDev Ontario, (i) what are its contents, (ii) what are the names of the sender and recipients, (iii) on what date was it sent; and (c) for each correspondence, including e-mails, between ministers’ exempt staff working at FedDev Ontario and ministers’ exempt staff working at the National Research Council, the Business Development Bank of Canada, and Industry Canada, (i) what are its contents, (ii) what are the names of the sender and recipients, (iii) on what date was it sent?

Q-541 — October 29, 2010 — — With regard to the government's activities in Botwood Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) is a human health risk assessment being conducted and, if so, what are its results to date; and (b) what are the results to date of the sediment sampling program?

Q-542² — November 1, 2010 — — With respect to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s (AAFC) Advance Payments Program (APP) and its Western Canadian administrators, for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what amount of funding did AAFC advance to each of the APP administrators and how much of that funding was (i) interest-free, (ii) interest bearing; (b) what are the names of the APP administrators with whom the Minister entered into Advance Guarantee Agreements (AGAs), identifying those administrators who complied with their AGAs; (c) when was the government first made aware of breaches of AGAs by APP administrators; (d) how and by whom was the information in (b) communicated to the administrators; (e) what are the names of all applicants who applied to fill positions as APP administrators but were declined, (i) what criteria informed each rejection, (ii) who collected and reviewed this criteria, (iii) by whom, when and how was the applicant notified of the rejection, (iv) by whom, when and how were existing APP administrators notified of the rejected application; (f) what activities has the government undertaken to address the accessibility of advances to producers; (g) what correspondence has the government received addressing the issue in (f), how was this information communicated and by whom; (h) what activities has the government undertaken to ensure producers receive all of the accrued interest from the holdback; (i) how much interest was claimed through the Claim for Reimbursement of Interest; (j) how much money has the government spent on information technologies for the APP’s online system; (k) how much money has the government spent on resolving the problem of duplicate and triplicate APP Identification Numbers; (l) pursuant to section 12.6.2 of the APP Administrative Guidelines, how much interest was paid by each administrator to the Minister for (i) failure to reimburse the loan on the next business day following the day on which the administrator received payment, in whole or in part of those advances, (ii) failure to reimburse its liability within 15 business days following the day of learning of a producer defaulting; (m) how much money has the government spent on dealing with APP administrators who are past the allowable 45 days to submit the End of Production Period report; (n) for each administrator, what was the holdback percentage specified (i) in each AGA, (ii) on each producer application to an administrator; (o) if any of the correlated amounts in (n) differ, what was the justification given in each case for the difference; (p) what percentage of producers have all-perils insurance documentation; (q) what correspondence did AAFC receive from existing APP administrators with regard to proposed new APP administrators, how was this information communicated and by whom; (r) what steps has the government undertaken, when and by whom to ensure that (i) documentation of creditworthiness is included in producer files, (ii) producer and witness signatures are authentic and valid; (s) what amount of funds has been paid to the Receiver General for Canada for the interest AAFC has already paid on advances under $100,000.00; (t) what amount of interest owed to the Receiver General for Canada is delinquent or past the allowable 45 business days of the End of Production Period; (u) which administrators are delinquent on the End of Production Period Reports and for how many Production Periods; (v) what steps has the government undertaken to rectify the “System Default” situation with the APP online system; (w) how much money from all government departments, aside from the APP funds, have the administrators received and from which programs; (x) when were AAFC audits of the administrators conducted and by whom; (y) when and how were the results of the audits in (x) communicated to the Minister; (z) what actions has the government undertaken to ensure that the APP is efficiently managed by AAFC; (aa) what specific criteria does the Minister of Agriculture apply when assessing organizations pursuant to (i) paragraph (2)(1)(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, (ii) paragraph (2)(1)(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act; (bb) what steps does the Minister take to ensure that all applicants have been provided a transparent and equal opportunity to apply for and be considered for the designation as an administrator while assessing organizations as in (aa); (cc) what steps does the Minister take to ensure that APP administrators currently under contract have complied with the terms of the AGA; and (dd) what steps has the government taken to ensure that the Minister and AAFC do not enter into new AGAs with administrators that are in breach of a prior AGA?

Q-543² — November 1, 2010 — — With regard to the government’s full-time equivalent (FTE) employees working and studying outside Canada, for each department, agency, board and commission, and for each year since 2006 to the present: (a) how many FTEs are working abroad; (b) how many FTEs are on a temporary assignment outside Canada; (c) how many FTEs are working outside Canada as volunteers; (d) how many FTEs have been seconded to work overseas in international development organizations; (e) how many FTEs are studying outside Canada; and (f) how much money has been spent on training FTEs outside Canada?

Q-544² — November 1, 2010 — — With regard to Canada’s operations in Afghanistan: (a) what is the cost of private security (i) in total, (ii) for every year since 2006 to the present; (b) for each year since 2006 to the present, what are the names of the private security firms hired by Canada, what is the value of each contract awarded to each company and what is the nature of the services provided under each contract; and (c) what rules and policies apply to the government’s contracting practices with regard to the hiring of private security firms in Afghanistan?

Q-545² — November 2, 2010 — — With regard to the trade in illicit tobacco products: (a) when will the Minister of Revenue publish the technical rules relating to the stamping regime which was created in Budget 2010 to combat contraband tobacco; (b) when did the Canada Revenue Agency first develop the stamp as a solution to contraband tobacco; (c) when were licensed tobacco manufacturers first consulted on the requirement to affix these stamps to their packages; (d) by how much will each stamp increase the cost of a single package of tobacco products; and (e) what impact does the government expect the stamping regime will have on the manufacturing and sale of contraband tobacco and why?

Q-546² — November 2, 2010 — — With regard to every project approved under the Economic Action Plan that was subsequently rescoped: (a) where is the project located; (b) on what date was the project originally approved; (c) on what date was the project rescoped; (d) what changes were made to the project; (e) how much federal funding was allocated to the project (i) before it was rescoped, (ii) after it was rescoped; and (f) what was the rationale for rescoping the project?

Q-547² — November 2, 2010 — — With regard to Statistics Canada and the census: (a) is Statistics Canada currently spending money to assess the value of the data it will collect from the new, voluntary National Household Survey (NHS) as compared to the value of the data previously collected from the mandatory long-form census; and (b) is Statistics Canada transferring any questions from the NHS to the 2011 Census of Population questionnaire which would render the questionnaire different from that published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on August 21, 2010?

Q-548² — November 2, 2010 — — With regard to the comments about foreign influence on Canadian politicians made by Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Director Richard Fadden on CBC Television on June 22, 2010: (a) what are the policies of CSIS and the Department of Public Safety in cases where foreign influence over elected officials is suspected; (b) which provinces have Cabinet ministers involved in the accusations and who are the Cabinet ministers; (c) which municipalities are involved in the accusations and who are the municipal politicians involved; (d) has the government communicated with (i) the premiers of the provinces involved about the matters in (b), (ii) the mayors of the cities involved about the matters in (c); (e) have Canadian government representatives had conversations or discussions with or made representations to representatives of the government of China regarding Mr. Fadden’s comments; (f) have Canadian government representatives had conversations or discussions with or made representations to representatives of foreign governments other than that of China regarding Mr. Fadden’s comments; (g) what were the contents and results of any conversations or discussions with or representations to representatives of other foreign governments regarding Mr. Fadden’s comments; and (h) since June 22, 2010, what steps has the government taken to address concerns raised about politicians under foreign influence?

Q-549² — November 2, 2010 — — With respect to the Chinese head tax redress: (a) what is the total number of head tax certificates that were issued by the government; (b) how many applications for Chinese head tax redress were (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) rejected; (c) how many applications for Chinese head tax redress were received after the March 31, 2008 deadline; (d) under the Community Historical Recognition Program, how many applications relating to the Chinese head tax have been (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) rejected; (e) how much money has been awarded to applications under the Community Historical Recognition Program relating to the Chinese head tax; (f) under the National Historical Recognition Program, how many applications relating to the Chinese head tax have been (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) rejected; (g) how much money has been awarded to applications under the National Historical Recognition Program relating to the Chinese head tax; (h) what government grants have been given out for other projects related to the Chinese head tax not covered under the Community Historical Recognition Program and the National Historical Recognition Program, (i) what were these grants, (ii) when were they awarded, (iii) how much were they worth; and (i) with regard to the Chinese head tax redress and the grants as outlined in (d), (f), and (h), how much money has been spent on (i) promotional materials, (ii) advertising, (iii) celebrations and events, (iv) staff, (v) staff travel, (vi) meetings, (vii) any other spending?

Q-550² — November 3, 2010 — — With regard to Statistics Canada and the census: (a) how much money did Statistics Canada project would be required to ensure the quality and accuracy of the data of the now defunct 2011 mandatory long-form census; (b) how much money does Statistics Canada expect will be required to ensure the quality and accuracy of the data of the new National Household Survey, which is to replace the mandatory long-form census; and (c) if the amount in (a) differs from the corresponding amount in (b), what explains this difference?

Q-551² — November 3, 2010 — — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of London North Centre for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

Q-552² — November 3, 2010 — — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of London West for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

Q-553² — November 4, 2010 — — With regard to the government's decision to terminate the development of an HIV vaccine manufacturing facility: (a) on what date was the Public Health Agency of Canada first informed that the Gates Foundation had commissioned a report to analyze the current vaccine manufacturing capacity in North America and Europe; (b) on what date was the Public Health Agency of Canada first informed of the results of the report commissioned by the Gates Foundation to analyze current vaccine manufacturing capacity in North America and Europe; (c) what were the dates of each meeting, including in person meetings and meetings conducted via teleconference, between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Gates Foundation regarding the report commissioned by the Gates Foundation and the changes to the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative; and (d) on what date was the Minister or the Minister's office first informed of the report and changes requested by the Gates Foundation concerning the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative?

Q-554² — November 4, 2010 — — With regard to the government's implementation of private Members' bills, what is a detailed description of the government's progress as concerns the implementation of each such bill that received Royal Assent during the 39th and 40th Parliaments?

Q-555² — November 4, 2010 — — With regard to citizen engagement, what is a detailed description of all such activities and consultations currently ongoing at all government departments, agencies and boards?

Q-556² — November 4, 2010 — — With regard to the government's plans to increase voter turnout in the next federal election, what measures does the government plan to take to encourage or facilitate: (a) youth voting; (b) overseas voting; (c) electronic voting; (d) voting in rural and remote regions; and (e) any other measures of similar intent?

Q-557² — November 4, 2010 — — With regard to the legislation governing the activities of Officers of Parliament, what are the details of any discussions held or research conducted by the government concerning revisions to legislation concerning: (a) the Access to Information Commissioner; (b) the Privacy Commissioner; (c) the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; and (d) the Commissioner of Lobbying?

Q-558² — November 4, 2010 — — Regarding the Competition Bureau’s investigation, initiated in 2005, and the charges in 2009 against information technology (IT) services companies against which Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) has levelled allegations of anti-competitive bid-rigging: (a) what are the names of the people from PWGSC, the Competition Bureau and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) who engaged in discussion or correspondence regarding the investigation and, if applicable, for each communication, (i) when did the communication take place, (ii) at what stage was the investigation, (iii) what matters were discussed, (iv) was there consensus on the action to take, (v) what is the description of the consensus; (b) during the period from June 1, 2008 to July 31, 2008, what are the names and titles of the people who made inquiries to the Competition Bureau about the stage of the investigation from (i) PWGSC, (ii) the Competition Bureau, (iii) the PPSC, (iv) Canada Border Services Agency, (v) Transport Canada, (vi) the Prime Minister’s Office; (c) were inquiries made to the PPSC or the Competition Bureau by people other than those identified in (b) and, if so, what is the name of each person and the date of the inquiry; (d) did the PWGSC Deputy Minister discuss the inquiry with the PPSC and the Competition Bureau and, if so, (i) when did these discussions take place, (ii) what was the content of these discussions, (iii) was the lawsuit brought by one of the companies named in the charges discussed and, if so, what is the name of the company; (e) can Competition Bureau lawyers work simultaneously for PWGSC; (f) can PPSC lawyers work simultaneously for PWGSC; (g) for the period from June 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, (i) what recommendations were made to PWGSC by the lawyers identified in (e) and (f), (ii) what are the names of these lawyers, (iii) were these lawyers informed of a lawsuit against PWGSC brought by one of the companies named in the Competition Bureau charges; (h) were Mr. Denis Pilon and Mr. V. Chénard, lawyers named by the government in a criminal case, denounced by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; (i) regarding the PPSC’s hiring of Mr. Denis Pilon, (i) what was the date of hire, (ii) what are the names of the people who made recommendations or suggestions or commented on the hiring of Mr. Pilon, (iii) who made the decision to ask Mr. Pilon to handle the file on the IT companies named in the Competition Bureau charges, (iv) were Mr. Pilon’s political activities for the Conservative Party declared and, if so, who informed the PPSC of these activities; (j) regarding the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the various departments involved in the case, was a study or an audit done on the quality of work performed by the companies involved in the alleged bid-rigging and, if so, (i) what was the assessment of the various departments of each company, (ii) what was the title of the document containing the studies or audits, (iii) on what date were these studies or audits done; (k) regarding the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the various departments involved in the case, was a study or an audit done on the market impact of the alleged bid-rigging and, if so, (i) on what date were these studies or audits done, (ii) what was the title of the document containing this information, (iii) what were the key findings and recommendations; (l) regarding PWGSC’s plan in December 2008 and January 2009 to debar the companies that allegedly rigged bids for IT services, (i) who, within PWGSC, the Competition Bureau or the PPSC, proposed this idea, (ii) was the basic principle of Canadian law that a person is innocent until proven guilty discussed, (iii) did the person responsible for the debarment decide to disregard the principle set out in (ii), (iv) did PWGSC subsequently assure one or more of the companies in question that they would not be debarred and, if applicable, what companies and why, (v) did PWGSC warn one or more departments that these companies might be debarred, (vi) after withdrawing its threat of immediate debarment, did PWGSC inform one or more departments to act as if nothing had happened with these companies, while awaiting the court’s decision, (vii) did PWGSC urge one or more departments to do whatever was necessary to prevent these companies from accessing business opportunities or contracts, (viii) for each circumstance in (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii), on what date did the communication take place; (m) did PWGSC senior officials provide instructions to avoid sending written information on certain lawsuits that risked being the subject of a possible access to information or privacy request and, if so, who gave this instruction and for what reason; (n) can the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the departments involved confirm that they still have all the evidence in their possession; (o) were the companies named in the Competition Bureau’s charges subject to greater scrutiny regarding their commercial activities with the government and, if so, (i) what are the names of the PWGSC employees given this task, (ii) which departments were contacted; and (p) is PWGSC involved in evaluating the proposals or in the contract adjudication process when these companies submit proposals and, if so, (i) to what extent are PWGSC public servants involved, (ii) what is the objective, (iii) what follow-up and communication procedures are in place between PWGSC and the departments regarding these cases, (iv) is there a document describing these procedures, (v) have these procedures largely been followed?

Q-559² — November 4, 2010 — — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of British Columbia Southern Interior, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-560² — November 4, 2010 — — With regard to the recent purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter jets: (a) what strategic studies have been conducted by either the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) or the Department of National Defence (DND) on future conflict scenarios that would justify expenditures on the F-35; (b) what meetings did DFAIT or DND take with other member countries of the Joint Strike Fighter program to discuss the costs of the F-35 jets; (c) what strategic studies have been conducted by DFAIT or DND on the role of F-35 jets in counter-insurgency operations; and (d) what strategic studies have been conducted by DFAIT or DND on the role of F-35 jets in the protection of Canadian ground troops in future peacekeeping operations?

Q-561² — November 4, 2010 — — With regard to the United Nations: (a) what recommendations has the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) put forward to improve the United Nations’ effectiveness as an international tool; (b) what strategic reviews has DFAIT produced regarding the United Nations and Canada’s role within it; (c) what briefing papers has DFAIT received or produced regarding possible reforms to the United Nations emergency relief protocol; and (d) what recommendations has DFAIT put forward regarding possible reforms to the United Nations emergency relief protocol?

Q-562² — November 4, 2010 — — With regard to the current renewed peace talks in the Middle East: (a) in what meetings has the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) participated regarding the renewed peace talks; (b) what briefing notes has DFAIT received or produced regarding the renewed peace talks; (c) what scenarios has DFAIT prepared for a Canadian role in the renewed peace talks; and (d) what scenarios has DFAIT prepared for a renewed Canadian role with the Refugee Working Group?

Q-563² — November 4, 2010 — — With regard to the flooding in Pakistan in late July 2010: (a) how much money has the government matched in donations from Canadian citizens; (b) to which organizations has the money from the matching program gone; (c) how much additional money has the government spent on the prevention of disease in Pakistan; (d) how much additional money has the government spent on the reconstruction of Pakistan; and (e) has the government looked into any other programs besides direct economic aid to help the people of Pakistan?

Q-564² — November 4, 2010 — — With regard to the October 29, 2010 announcement by Justice Canada entitled "Government of Canada takes concrete action regarding missing and murdered Aboriginal women": (a) what are the initiatives of this announcement; (b) what is the description of each federal initiative; (c) by fiscal year, how much of the $10 million mentioned in the announcement will be allocated to each initiative; (d) by fiscal year, what is the planned total federal funding contribution for each initiative; (e) by fiscal year and source of funding, what funding contribution for the initiatives will be provided by other stakeholders, including provinces and territories; (f) what federal departments or agencies are responsible for implementing the initiatives of the announcement; (g) are there any third parties that will be involved with these initiatives and how much funding will they receive; (h) what is the process for reporting on these initiatives; (i) what was the consultation process prior to launching these initiatives; (j) what was the process for selecting which organizations would receive funding under these initiatives; (k) what was Status of Women Canada's role in developing these initiatives; (l) what was Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's role in developing these initiatives; (m) what are the targets and benchmarks for each initiative; and (n) what is the result of the gender analysis conducted on these initiatives?

Q-565² — November 12, 2010 — — With respect to persons who have accompanied the Prime Minister on foreign and domestic trips, for the period January 1, 2006 to October 11, 2010: (a) in what capacity does image consultant Michelle Muntean travel on transportation provided by the government; (b) does Ms. Muntean receive any remuneration from the government; (c) on what trips did Ms. Muntean travel with the Prime Minister; (d) what was the total cost associated with Ms. Muntean’s travel, broken down by the amount spent on (i) transportation, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (e) which government department or agency paid for expenses incurred as a result of Ms. Muntean’s travel; (f) have any outside individuals, groups or organizations paid for any of Ms. Muntean’s travel expenses; (g) what bills have been sent to individuals, groups or organizations for Ms. Muntean’s travel expenses; (h) what are the names of the individuals, other than Ms. Muntean, not employed by the government, excluding the Prime Minister’s spouse and children, who have accompanied the Prime Minister on domestic or foreign travel; (i) in what capacity did the individuals in (h) travel on transportation provided by the government; (j) on what trips have the individuals in (h) traveled with the Prime Minister; (k) for the individuals in (h), what was the total cost associated with their travel, broken down by the amount spent on (i) transportation, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (l) which government department or agency paid for the expenses in (k); (m) have any outside individuals, groups or organizations paid for any of the travel expenses in (k); and (n) what bills have been sent to the individuals, groups or organizations in (m)?

Q-566² — November 12, 2010 — — With regard to chemical spraying programs conducted at CFB Gagetown from 1956 to 1984 and the government’s management of their environmental and human health effects through to the present: (a) what is a detailed overview of the programs, in particular, for each chemical used in the spraying programs from 1956 to 1984, (i) what is its name, (ii) what were its years of use, (iii) what is its half-life, (iv) was it biodegradable or water-soluble, (v) does it bioaccumulate, (vi) in what area was it sprayed, (vii) how much of the chemical was used, including the number of barrels, (viii) how were the barrels which contained the chemical disposed of and how was this disposal monitored, (ix) how much did it cost to purchase the chemical, (x) how many people were living, recreating or working within five kilometres of CFB Gagetown in the years the chemical was sprayed, (xi) what concentrations or levels of the chemical are currently found in the area’s soil and vegetation, (xii) based on a backward extrapolation from information about current chemical concentrations or levels, what concentrations or levels does the government estimate were present in the area’s soil and vegetation in the years immediately following its use in the spraying programs; (b) were any sensitive areas cordoned off at any time since 1956 as a result of the spraying programs and, if so, what areas; (c) was compensation for damages paid to farms in the area surrounding CFB Gagetown from 1956 to 1984 and, if so, in what amounts; (d) what was the total cost of the spraying programs for each year from 1956 to 1984; (e) what is the ranking of the years 1956 through 1984 in terms of the amount of chemicals sprayed each year; (f) in what years and in what specific locations were each of the Agents Orange, Purple and White sprayed; (g) what are the details of every environmental and health and safety warning provided to Canadian Forces (CF) members, their families and the civilian population of the surrounding areas, in each year from 1956 to 1984, both before and during spraying; (h) for each year from 1956 to 1984, what are the details of any attempts made, additional to those in (g), to reduce human exposure to the chemicals used in the spraying programs; (i) what specific measures, including the communication of recommendations, were implemented to protect pregnant mothers, women who wanted to become pregnant, newborns and children, and what, if any, follow-up was undertaken with these groups after spraying; (j) for each year from 1956 to 1984, what are the details of any biological, environmental, and human health monitoring that took place in the area of spraying and surrounding areas, in particular the monitoring of (i) humans, (ii) animals, identifying each species, (iii) potable water wells, (iv) recreational areas, (v) recreational sub-watersheds, (vi) areas where CF members and civilians worked and recreated, (vii) areas where children played; (k) which of the monitoring programs in (j) took into consideration meteorological conditions at the time of spraying; (l) for each chemical identified in (a), what were the possible exposure routes for people living in and around CFB Gagetown; (m) following spraying and in subsequent years, what was the estimated load of Agents Orange, Purple and White found in (i) pregnant women, (ii) newborns, (iii) children, (iv) CF members, (v) the civilian population; (n) what poor pregnancy outcomes, birth defects, developmental problems, cancers and immune problems were tracked at CFB Gagetown and in CF families following time spent at CFB Gagetown; (o) for each chemical presently found at CFB Gagetown that does not occur naturally in the environment, (i) what is its name, (ii) what is its concentration, (iii) how does this concentration compare to the chemical’s Maximum Acceptable Concentration; (p) what is the precautionary principle and how has the government applied it to the safety of the environment and the health and welfare of members of the CF and the civilian population at CFB Gagetown; (q) for each chemical identified in (o), (i) what environmental monitoring currently takes place, including the monitoring of soil, water and vegetation, (ii) what areas are considered to be contaminated by the chemical and a risk to human health, (iii) what areas were recommended to be cordoned off, (iv) what clean-up has been undertaken or has been deemed necessary, (v) what areas will remain cordoned off for the foreseeable future; (r) for each chemical identified in (o), what medical monitoring currently takes place of CF members, their families, and the civilians in the areas surrounding CFB Gagetown; (s) was a disease registry developed to track the health of CF personnel, their families and civilians in the areas surrounding CFB Gagetown who were exposed to chemicals used during the spraying programs from 1956 to 1984 and, if not, why not, and, if so, (i) when was the registry developed, (ii) who operated the registry, (iii) what information was tracked, (iv) what follow-up has continued to 2010; (t) what critical integrative analyses, such as longitudinal evaluation of cancer data, have been undertaken in Canada and what information has been made available to the public; (u) what efforts has the government made to understand the trans-generational effects of exposure to the various chemicals used during the spraying programs; (v) does Canada have an equivalent to the United States' Agent Orange Act of 1991, in particular, is Canada required to conduct updates of the science every two years to review newly available literature regarding Agents Orange, Purple and White and to draw conclusions from the overall evidence; (w) what environmental, occupational and veterans studies have been undertaken in Canada regarding exposure to Agents Orange, Purple and White during the last four years, and what were the findings; (x) what years does the government recognize as possible exposure periods to (i) Agent Orange, (ii) Agent Purple, (iii) Agent White, (iv) other identified chemicals of major public health concern; (y) which of the diseases recognized by the Institute of Medicine as connected to exposure to Agent Orange are not recognized by Veterans Affairs Canada in connection with the provision of any form of compensation; (z) what are the details of Canada’s compensation measures for individuals exposed to Agent Orange, in particular, (i) does Canada offer a cost-free Agent Orange registry health exam, (ii) what is the eligibility criteria for veterans' health care benefits, (iii) what kind of treatment is offered at war-related illness and injury study centers, (iv) what compensation is provided to veterans' children with spina bifida or other birth defects; and (aa) for Agent Orange claims, (i) how many have been submitted up to the day of the extension, (ii) how many have been paid out to date, (iii) how many have been denied and what was the reason for each denial, (iv) what is the average time required to process a claim, (v) how many claims are currently being appealed, (vi) what is the average time required to process an appeal?

Q-567² — November 15, 2010 — — With regard to the eviction of Canadian Forces from Camp Mirage: (a) what is the anticipated cost of (i) losing access to Camp Mirage, (ii) gaining access to replacement facilities elsewhere; b) what has been the cost to date of (i) losing access to Camp Mirage, (ii) gaining access to replacement facilities elsewhere; (c) how much did Canada pay the United Arab Emirates (UAE) annually in rent for access to Camp Mirage in each of the years Canada had it; (d) how much will Canada pay the host countries annually in rent to access the new location(s); (e) how many additional landing slots and in which airports did UAE request for its aircraft just before it revoked access to Camp Mirage; (f) how many times did the Minister of Foreign Affairs meet with the UAE ambassador since the ambassador began his role in Canada; and (g) when evacuating a wounded Canadian soldier from Afghanistan to Landstuhl Military Hospital in Germany, how many additional flight hours are added by not routing that flight through Camp Mirage and routing it through the new location instead?

Q-568² — November 15, 2010 — — With regard to the failed negotiations that led to the recent restrictions of the Canadian Forces’ use of the Camp Mirage Air Base in the United Arab Emirates: (a) on a line-by-line basis, what are the known and estimated financial costs of losing privileged access to this base for the Canadian Forces; (b) on what date were these cost estimates completed and by which department(s); (c) on what date were these cost estimates submitted to the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office, respectively; and (d) has the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Forces completed a detailed analysis of how the restriction of the Canadian Forces’ use of this base will impact the mortality rate of Canadian soldiers ending a tour of duty in Afghanistan and, if so, (i) what are the contents and results of this analysis, (ii) which ministers had access to these results and on what dates did they receive access?

Q-569² — November 15, 2010 — — With respect to the government’s target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2020: (a) what is the government’s assessment of how Canada will meet this target; (b) what are the government’s estimates of Canadian emissions levels in megatonnes for each year in the period from 2006 through 2020, specifying the year in which emissions are expected to peak; (c) how many emission credits does the government estimate it will need to purchase to meet this target, from where does it intend to purchase them and how much it will cost; (d) what does the government estimate will be the carbon price under the carbon pricing scheme that the government plans to use for each year from 2010 through 2020; and (e) what, given the Minister of the Environment’s October 29, 2009 statement that it is possible to meet the target with a carbon price of $28 per tonne, are the details of all documents and assessments in the government’s possession that examine how the target will be met with that carbon price and when and how does the government plan to implement that carbon price?

Q-570² — November 16, 2010 — — With regard to the Applicant’s Guide for the Aid to Publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund: (a) what exact formula is used to determine the funding amount a publisher may receive, as mentioned in section 6.1 of the Guide, and is there a formula for the adjustments according to circulation volume, circulation method, type of periodical and audience and, if so, what is the formula; (b) why are farm publications the only ones not subject to the funding cap of $1.5 million per year, as indicated in section 6.3 of the Guide, and which periodicals qualify for this exception; and (c) what percentage constitutes “majority owned and controlled by Canadians” as mentioned in section 3.1 of the Guide, and is there a difference between this percentage and the one prescribed by the Income Tax Act and, if so, what are the reasons for this difference?

Q-571² — November 16, 2010 — — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of Papineau for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) how many projects received funding from all departments or agencies over this period; (b) what projects received funding from all departments or agencies over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from all departments or agencies over this period?

Q-572² — November 17, 2010 — — With regard to the telecommunications industry and the proliferation of new cellular telephone towers: (a) how many new cell phone towers have been constructed in the City of Toronto in each year from January 1, 2006 to November 18, 2010; (b) has Health Canada studied the short-term and long-term health implications of these towers and the electronic and magnetic fields (EMF) they emit and, if so, what were the results of these studies; (c) what does the government set as the standard for safe levels of public exposure to EMF; (d) how do the standards set in (c) compare to standards set in the European Union, the United States of America, China, Japan and Australia; (e) have there been any documented cases of health problems or birth defects as a result of exposure to EMF from cell phone towers; (f) what criteria are used to establish placement of these cell phone towers, including environmental, health, safety impacts, as well as proximity to schools, hospitals, day care facilities and seniors residences; (g) what is the proximity of each cell phone tower in the City of Toronto to the nearest school and what is the name of each school; (h) what are the average Canadian’s exposure levels to EMF on a daily basis at home; (i) what is the exposure level emitted by cell phone towers; and (j) is the government regularly testing EMF from these cell phone towers and, if so, how often?

Q-573² — November 19, 2010 — — With regard to Western Economic Diversification Canada, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, how much did each spend on communication in each fiscal year from 2000-2001 to 2009-2010?

Q-574² — November 22, 2010 — — With regard to federal regulation of the lands in the Northwest Territories, in detail: (a) what was the rationale for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's recommendation that the subsurface interim land withdrawal for Edehzhie Candidate National Wildlife Area not be renewed; (b) prior to making the recommendation, did the department consult with the Dehcho First Nations and, if so, (i) when were the consultations conducted, (ii) how were they conducted, (iii) where were they conducted, (iv) what was their outcome; and (c) if no consultations were conducted with the Dehcho First Nations, what were the reasons?

Q-575² — November 22, 2010 — — With regard to the May 2010 changes to the Functional Guidance and Procedures for Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) withdrawals and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) adjustments: (a) what was the rationale behind changing the guidelines, such that seniors who voluntarily withdraw funds from their RRIFs may no longer be eligible for GIS, Allowance, or Allowance for survivors benefits; (b) why is there a distinction such that seniors who withdraw funds from a RRIF are penalized, while it is possible to withdraw the same amount from a savings account without impacting GIS eligibility and payment amounts; (c) who was responsible for the decision to make these changes; and (d) in light of the recommendation from The Honourable Justice E.A. Bowie and The Honourable Justice J.E. Hershfield of the Tax Court of Canada that this policy should be reviewed, what has the government done to examine the effects of these procedures and ensure that they are in the best interest of Canadian citizens?

Q-576² — November 22, 2010 — — With regard to Canada's campaign for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations: (a) what are the total expenditures for the campaign; (b) what are the costs and descriptions of travel expenses incurred by each Minister, Parliamentary Secretary and their exempt staff where the campaign was a subject of discussion; (c) what are the costs and descriptions of hospitality expenses incurred by each Minister and Parliamentary Secretary where the campaign was a subject of discussion; (d) what are the costs and descriptions of gifts to foreign officials in support of the campaign; and (e) what are the costs and descriptions of printed materials produced in support of the campaign?

Q-577² — November 22, 2010 — — For each of the financial quarters from 2008 until today, what are the details of any contract between Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and the following companies, including what prompted the issuing of the contract, who were the staff from the company that worked on the contract and what use was made of the results of each contract or what were the deliverables of the contract and, for each of the contracts, what steps did INAC take to determine if the contractee was lobbying INAC on other issues: (a) Laurier Research Group Limited; (b) Halifax Group; (c) Bay Street Research and Records Management Inc.; (d) Publicmetrics; (e) Centre for Public Management Inc.; (f) Delsys Research Group Inc.; (g) Accenture; (h) Canadian Development Consultants Inc.; (i) Hallux Consulting Inc.; (j) Stratum Associates; (k) Public History Inc.; (l) Wampum Records; (m) Stratos Inc.; (n) Workgroup Designs Inc.; (o) Joan Holmes & Associates Inc.; (p) Naut Sa Mawt Resources Groups Inc.; (q) Institute on Governance; (r) The History Group Inc.; (s) Forest Communications Inc.; (t) Smith Research Inc.; (u) Sea Mist Consultants; (v) Nisha Technologies Inc.; (w) Prairie Research Associates Inc.; (x) Rawson Group Initiatives Inc.; (y) Bronson Consulting Group; and (z) Sussex Circle?

Q-578² — November 22, 2010 — — With regard to cases awaiting Ministerial Relief decisions from the Canada Border Services Agency, broken down by country, what is: (a) their number; (b) the average duration of wait; (c) the rationale for the multiple years of delays in making a decision; (d) the number of staff assigned to clear the backlog; (e) the number of cases appealed to the Federal Court as a result of an unreasonable delay; and (f) the cost to the government to defend these delays in Federal Court?

Q-579² — November 23, 2010 — — With regard to the $1.48 billion dollar investment pledged under the ecoENERGY for Renewable Power Initiative, for each of the fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted; (b) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted to boost Canada’s supply of wind sources, and who were the beneficiaries of that funding; (c) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted to boost Canada’s supply of biomass energy sources, and who were the beneficiaries of that funding; (d) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted to boost Canada’s small hydro and ocean energy sources, and who were the beneficiaries of that funding; (e) how many jobs were maintained by the Initiative; and (f) how many jobs were created by the Initiative?

Q-580² — November 23, 2010 — — With regard to the $1.5 billion dedicated to the Canada ecoTrust for Clean Air and Climate Change in Budget 2007, for each of the fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted; (b) what were the major environmental projects funded; (c) who were the beneficiaries of the funding allotted; (d) in which provinces or territories were the beneficiaries of funding located; (e) how many jobs were maintained as a result of the funding allotted; and (f) how many jobs were created as a result of the funding?

Q-581² — November 23, 2010 — — With regard to the $400 million dedicated to Canada Health Infoway in Budget 2007: (a) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted for each of the fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; (b) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted for each province and territory in Canada for each of those fiscal years; (c) what were the specific projects, initiatives and undertakings developed as a result of the funding in each of those fiscal years; (d) what were the emergency room wait times in each of the provinces and territories in the fiscal year before said provinces and territories received their first increment of funding; and (e) what are the emergency room wait times in each of the provinces and territories, for each of those fiscal years, since said provinces and territories received their first increment of funding?

Q-582² — November 23, 2010 — — With respect to the inspections of gas pumps and other measuring devices mandated in Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, of the present session of the 40th Parliament: (a) what is the expected cost to the owner of an average establishment in a rural community in each of the trade sectors identified in the Bill, for each aspect of a trip taken by a non-government inspector specifically for the mandatory inspection of each of the measuring devices utilized in the conduct of their trade; (b) what studies, if any, have been conducted which examine, centrally or peripherally, the cost of the examinations cited in the Bill; and (c) what are the results of the studies referred to in (b)?

Q-583² — November 23, 2010 — — With respect to the compassionate care benefits administered by Service Canada: (a) how many Canadians or permanent residents applied for the benefits between the first day they became available and December 31, 2008, distributed by calendar year; and (b) how many Canadians or permanent residents received the benefits between the first day they became available and December 31, 2008, distributed by calendar year?

Q-584² — November 23, 2010 — — With respect to the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario and each regional Economic Development Agency: (a) what is the detailed economic projection or forecast for each region of Canada with an Economic Development Agency; (b) what is the detailed economic projection or forecast for Northern Ontario; (c) in detail, what economic benefit did the Economic Development Agency for each region possessing such an Agency provide to that region; (d) in detail, what economic benefit did the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario provide to that region; (e) for each government project in Northern Ontario, what are the (i) name of the project, (ii) location of the project, (iii) amount of government funding, (iv) start date, (v) state of completion, (vi) cooperating agencies; (f) for each government project in each region with an Economic Development Agency, what are the (i) name of the project, (ii) location of the project, (iii) amount of government funding, (iv) start date, (v) state of completion, (vi) cooperating agencies; and (g) in detail, what is the projected economic impact on Northern Ontario of the establishment of a regional Economic Development Agency in Northern Ontario detailed in any and each government report examining, centrally or peripherally, a proposal therefor, produced between 2006 and the present?

Q-585² — November 23, 2010 — — With respect to the 2010 strategic review of the Canada Student Loan Program within Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been reviewed as a part of the comprehensive strategic review process; (b) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been identified as low-priority through strategic review; (c) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been identified as low-performing through strategic review; (d) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been identified as suitable options for funding reallocation through strategic review; (e) what is the total value of all program funding identified as suitable for reallocation through strategic review; (f) what program priorities will the funding reallocation be allotted to through strategic review; and (g) has the Canada Student Loan Program identified options for potential savings beyond the five percent required under the strategic review guidelines?

Q-586² — November 23, 2010 — — With respect to long-term care (LTC) medical facilities for veterans: (a) by province and territory, what is the history and the rationale for the closure of LTC medical facilities for veterans including, for each facility closed, (i) the name of the facility, (ii) the number of beds closed, (iii) the date of each closure, (iv) what became of the facility; (b) what are the requirements for access to LTC facilities for (i) Second World War veterans, (ii) modern day veterans; (c) what are the health challenges and, if possible, statistics for each identified challenge for (i) Second World War veterans, (ii) modern day veterans; (d) what percentage of Second World War veterans in LTC facilities have dementia or mental health challenges; (e) regarding Korean War veterans, (i) what percentage of them are expected to develop dementia or mental health challenges, (ii) what additional impacts might Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury play in serving these patients, (iii) by province and territory, what planning has been undertaken to meet this increasing demand, (iv) what, if any, thought has been given to developing specialized centres or beds to meet the increasing needs of this veteran population; (f) by province and territory, what are all LTC facilities (including hospitals, care, community care, and contract facilities) available to Second World War veterans and, for each facility, (i) how many beds are available, and how many were available at the facility’s maximum use, (ii) what is the wait time, (iii) what are the standards of care, how are they measured and how often, (iv) what are all specialized programs available to meet the medical needs of the aging veteran population, (v) what are all specialized programs available to veterans to improve their quality of life, (vi) what is the average distance of the facility from a veteran’s home or family, (vii) how many veterans are currently residing in the facility, (viii) what is the average stay of a veteran, (ix) what is the average cost per bed in the facility, (x) what is the average cost to the veteran, (xi) what is the average cost to the veteran’s family; (g) by province and territory, for each LTC facility identified in (f) and modern veterans, (i) how many beds are available, and how many were available at the facility’s maximum use, (ii) what is the wait time, (iii) what are the standards of care, how are they measured and how often, (iv) what are all specialized programs available to meet the medical needs of the aging veteran population, (v) what are all specialized programs available to veterans to improve their quality of life, (vi) what is the average distance of the facility from a veteran’s home or family, (vii) how many veterans are currently residing in the facility, and how this is expected to change over the next five to ten year period, (viii) what is the average stay of a veteran, (ix) what is the average cost per bed in the facility, (x) what is the average cost to the veteran, (xi) what is the average cost to the veteran’s family; (h) what are examples of (i) unique facilities, (ii) unique specialized programs to meet medical needs, (iii) unique programs to improve quality of life that might be replicated in other provinces and territories for Second World War veterans; (i) by province and territory, what are the requirements for Second World War veterans (i) to qualify to receive home care and health care benefits while they wait at home for an available bed, (ii) to be placed in a long-term care bed in a community facility; (j) by province and territory, how many veterans are currently on a wait list for LTC facilities (i) for Second World War veterans, (ii) modern day veterans; (k) how does Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) determine what it will contribute to the cost of a Second World War veteran’s long-term care and a modern day veteran’s care, and what is the (i) average monthly pay-out for each group, (ii) short-fall that must be provided by veterans, families or caregivers, by province and territory; (l) by province and territory, what are the comprehensive statistics from 2005 to 2010 regarding the demand by the Second World War veteran population and the modern day veteran population for beds, and what is the projection for demand over the next five years for each identified population; (m) by province and territory, for each LTC facility that do not appear to be using its full capacity, (i) what is the name of the facility, (ii) how many priority access beds are not being used, (iii) is there is a wait list, (iv) do forecasts show a need for beds in the future, (v) what plans, if any, are being made for the facility, (vi) how will VAC work with the facility and the province or territory to ensure a smooth transition; (n) what, if any, consideration has been given to expand the definition of eligible veterans for LTC facilities to include modern day veterans, and what eligibility criteria might be put in place; and (o) what challenges do modern day veterans have in accessing specialized LTC facilities, including, but not limited to, (i) competing with the general public for beds in LTC homes or hospitals, (ii) long wait lists, (iii) long distances from a veteran’s home and family, (iv) lack of expertise to address veterans needs such as amputee rehabilitation, PTSD treatment, and severe body and head trauma?

Q-587² — November 23, 2010 — — With respect to nuclear testing and operations: (a) what are each above-ground nuclear weapons trials in which Canadian military personnel participated between 1946 and 1963, and for each trial, (i) what was the number of Canadian personnel, (ii) what was their branch of the forces or to which branch were they related, in the case of civilian employees of the Government of Canada attached to elements of the air, army or naval forces of Canada for the purpose of scientific or technical support to the forces, (iii) what were their assigned tasks, (iv) did a radiation detection team go in before the test to establish the ‘background’ radiation levels and, if so, what were the measured levels, (v) what was the size of the test, (vi) what were measured levels of nuclear fall-out, (vii) what precautions were taken to protect personnel, (viii) what was the distance from the test, specifying, if any, varying distances for different groups, (ix) what was the length of exposure, (x) what were possible exposure routes, (xi) what was the average number of showers taken by those exposed, and any other decontamination methods employed, (xii) what were the measurements of contamination taken of personnel, and specifically any samples taken, (xiii) were any personnel measured for radiation levels after each shower or other decontamination methods employed, (xiv) were any health effects reported at the time of the test, including, but not limited to, nausea, diarrhoea, hair loss, radiation burns, vomiting, or radiation poisoning, (xv) was there any follow-up with personnel, including, but not limited to, dose reconstruction and samples, (xvi) is there any long-term tracking of health effects and trans-generational effects through a registry; (b) regarding Canadian military personnel and civilian employees of the Government of Canada attached to elements of the air, army or naval forces of Canada for the purpose of scientific or technical support to the forces involved in the two Chalk River Reactor clean-ups in 1952 and 1958, (i) what was their number, (ii) what was their branch of the forces, (iii) what were their assigned tasks, (iv) what were the measured levels of nuclear contamination in the Chalk River Reactors in both 1952 and 1958, (v) what precautions were taken to protect personnel, (vi) what were the measured levels of nuclear contamination of those exposed, and any samples taken, (vii) what was the length of exposure, (viii) what were possible exposure routes, (ix) what was the average number of showers taken by those exposed, and any other decontamination methods employed, (x) were personnel measured for radiation levels after each shower or other decontamination methods employed, (xi) were any health effects reported at the time of the clean-up, including, but not limited to, nausea, diarrhoea, hair loss, radiation burns, vomiting, or radiation poisoning, (xii) was there any follow-up with personnel, including, but not limited to, dose reconstruction and samples, (xiii) is there any long-term tracking of health effects and trans-generational effects through a registry; (c) what was “Task Force Warrior”, (i) how many people were employed, (ii) how many blasts were they exposed to, (iii) were there witnesses and, if so, how far were they stationed from the blasts, and how were they protected, (iv) how many of “Task Force Warrior” members have died, (v) what was their cause of death; (d) in ascending order of magnitude, what were the exposure levels for all identified incidents in (a), (b) and (c); (e) in ascending order of magnitude, what was the length of exposure for all identified incidents in (a), (b) and (c); (f) combining the information in (d) and (e) and other dose reconstruction methods, what was the severity of the event in ascending order for all tests; (g) what, if any, poor pregnancy outcomes, birth defects, developmental problems, cancers, cataracts and cardiovascular problems were tracked among Canadian Forces personnel and Government of Canada employees who supported the forces, following nuclear testing and the Chalk River clean-up for the years (i) 1946 to 1963, (ii) up to 2010; (h) was compensation for damages paid to households, businesses, farms, etc. in the area surrounding Chalk River in the years following 1952 and 1958 and, if so, in what amounts; (i) was a disease registry developed to track the health of Canadian Forces and Government of Canada personnel and their families who were exposed through nuclear testing or the clean-up of Chalk River, and, if not, why not and, if so, (i) when was the registry developed, (ii) who operated the registry, (iii) what information was tracked and for who, (iv) what follow-up has continued to 2010; (j) what critical integrative analyses, such as longitudinal evaluation of cancer amongst the two populations have been undertaken in Canada, and what information has been made available to the public; (k) what, if any, efforts has the government made to understand the trans-generational effects of exposure to radiation through nuclear testing and the clean-up of Chalk River; (l) what are all environmental, occupational, and veterans studies undertaken in Canada regarding exposure to radiation through nuclear testing or clean-up of Chalk River, and their findings; (m) what process was developed to identify an appropriate form of recognition beyond pension for both nuclear testing and the clean-up of Chalk River, (i) who was engaged in the process both within and across government agencies, (ii) what are all relevant stakeholders who were engaged, (iii) for each identified group in (i) and (ii) what were their recommendations, (iv) how was each recommendation considered, (v) was the recommendation accepted or rejected; (n) what consideration was given to providing awards for “presumptive” radiation health issues, including cancers, and other health conditions, and why was the recommendation not ultimately pursued; (o) how was the ex-gratia payment of $24,000 calculated as a suitable award, (i) what are all relevant stakeholders who were engaged, (ii) for each identified group, what were their comments on the calculated figure; (p) of the 700 former Canadian military personnel who participated in up to 29 United States and United Kingdom nuclear weapons trials between 1946 and 1963, identified in Dr. Clearwater’s report, (i) how many applied for the Atomic Veterans Recognition Program (AVRP), (ii) how many had one or more health conditions that might have been caused by their exposure, (iii) how many had children who might have had health conditions linked to a parent’s exposure, (iv) how many would have benefitted through a presumptive awards program; (q) did additional people come forward who were not included in Dr. Clearwater’s report, and if so, (i) how many applied for the AVRP Program, (ii) what processes did they have to follow in order to be recognized, (iii) how many of these were awarded an ex-gratia payment and how many were denied, and for each denial, what was the explanation given, (iv) how many sought an appeal, (v) how many were awarded an ex-gratia payment after one or more appeals; (r) of the 200 former Canadian military personnel who participated in the clean-up and decontamination activities in Chalk River, (i) how many applied for the AVRP Program, (ii) what processes did they have to follow in order to be recognized, (iii) how many of these were awarded an ex-gratia payment and how many were denied, and for each denial, what was the explanation given, (iv) how many sought an appeal, (v) how many were awarded an ex-gratia payment after one or more appeals; and (s) of the 900 identified people in Dr. Clearwater’s report, by province and territory, (i) how many of the Canadian Forces members or National Defence Civilian Employees were deceased on the date the application was completed, (ii) what was the cause of death for each of the deceased, (iii) how many estate executors, primary beneficiaries, or primary caregivers of these employees submitted an application on behalf of the deceased, (iv) what were the specific guidelines used to determine whether or not to award the ex-gratia payment, (v) how many ex-gratia payments were granted to one of the following, namely, the deceased forces veteran or National Defence Civilian Employee’s estate, their primary beneficiary, or their primary caregiver, (vi) how many ex-gratia payments were denied, and for each denial, what was the explanation, (vii) how many appeals were sought, (viii) of these, how many were awarded?

Q-588² — November 24, 2010 — — Since the 2008-2009 fiscal year, what are all the contracts of less than $10,000 awarded by Natural Resources Canada, including the supplier’s name, the date, the description and the value?

Q-589² — November 24, 2010 — — Since the 2008-2009 fiscal year, what are all the contracts of less than $10,000 awarded by the Department of Finance, including the supplier’s name, the date, the description and the value?

Q-590² — November 24, 2010 — — With respect to the government's negotiations to purchase F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft from the United States, has the government negotiated or obtained any concessions concerning Trade in Arms Regulations?

Q-591² — November 24, 2010 — — With respect to the provision within the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act which sets out a duty of consultation for the competent Ministers: (a) which international agencies and civil society organizations were consulted by Ministers in 2008 and 2009; (b) what were the themes and subject areas of those consultations; (c) what were the views expressed by civil society organizations and international agencies on those themes and subjects; (d) how were those views taken into account when forming opinions under the Act; (e) did the consultation process invite consideration of the human rights impact of aid provided in target countries and, if not, why not; (f) was participation by international agencies and civil society organizations open-ended or limited to a select group of participants; and (g) was the consultation process public?

Q-592² — November 24, 2010 — — With respect to the government’s stated policy of returning the budget to balance: (a) what are the summaries, item by item, of all of the government programs, services, operating costs and all other cost categories that have increased (above the rate of inflation) for the fiscal years from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011; (b) what are all budgetary items that the government will freeze or cut in order to achieve a balanced budget and in which fiscal year(s) will these freezes or cuts take place; (c) how will these savings balance against the Bank of Canada’s projected annual revenues of the government; (d) does the government plan to raise taxes to eliminate the deficit and, if so, which taxes; and (e) does the government plan to sell any of its assets in order to eliminate the deficit and, if so, which assets?

Q-593² — November 24, 2010 — — With regard to the 2005 Montreal Climate Change Conference, what are the details of all contracts for goods or services relating to the conference, specifying for each contract (i) the name of the contractor, (ii) a description of the goods or services provided, (iii) the value of the contract, (iv) whether or not there was an open bidding process for the contract?

Q-594² — November 24, 2010 — — With regard to the government's new excise duty tobacco tax stamp, which was designed and produced by the Canadian Bank Note Company and SICPA Product Security SA and implementation of which was mandated to the government in early 2010: (a) when will tobacco manufacturers be required to implement the new tobacco tax stamp on their products; (b) how much money has the government spent, since 2005 to present, to develop and implement the new tax stamping system; and (c) what are the reasons for the delay in implementing this initiative, which was first identified as a priority by the Canada Revenue Agency in 2005?


² Response requested within 45 days