Wednesday, March 9, 2011 (No. 142)

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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.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-525 — October 26, 2010 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — 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 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — 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-536 — October 28, 2010 — Mr. Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River) — 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-8182 — December 15, 2010 — Ms. Hall Findlay (Willowdale) — With respect to the meetings between the Government of Canada, U.S. governors and members of the U.S. House of Representatives on U.S. protectionist legislation in a bid to defend Canadian companies: (a) how many meetings were held; (b) with whom, for each meeting; (c) what were the dates of these meetings; and (d) what is the content of the meeting minutes and correspondence?

Q-8192 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to the Infirm Dependent Tax Credit, for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010: (a) how many people applied for the tax credit; (b) how many people qualified to receive the tax credit; and (c) what was the total amount granted for this tax credit?

Q-8202 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to the Disability Tax Credit, for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010: (a) how many people applied for the tax credit; (b) how many people qualified to receive the tax credit; and (c) what was the total amount granted for this tax credit?

Q-8212 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to the Eligible Dependent Tax Credit, for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010: (a) how many people applied for the tax credit; (b) how many people qualified to receive the tax credit; and (c) what was the total amount granted for this tax credit?

Q-8222 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to the Medical Expenses Tax Credit, for each calendar year between 2004 and 2010: (a) how many people applied for the tax credit; (b) how many people qualified to receive the tax credit; and (c) what was the total amount granted for this tax credit?

Q-8232 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), of which Canada is a Contracting Party: (a) what are the current Contracting Parties to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, otherwise known as the NAFO Convention; (b) which of these Contracting Parties are known by Canada through its diplomatic relations to have ratified the revised NAFO Convention, as adopted by NAFO in September 2007; (c) which of these Contracting Parties are known to have informed the NAFO Depository or the NAFO Secretariat of their ratification, acceptance and approval of the revised NAFO Convention; (d) how much did Canada spend conducting enforcement of NAFO fisheries conservation measures in the NAFO regulatory area in each of fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, broken down by all departments and agencies; (e) how much did Canada spend on scientific research and fisheries stock assessment in the NAFO regulatory area on NAFO regulated species and on ecosystem research in each of fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, broken down by all departments and agencies; (f) how much did all other NAFO Contracting Parties spend on conducting fisheries enforcement of NAFO conservation measures in the NAFO regulatory area in each year from 2007 to 2010; (g) how much did all other NAFO Contracting Parties spend on scientific research and fisheries stock assessment and ecosystem research in the NAFO regulatory area in each year from 2007 to 2010; (h) how much did Canada contribute directly to the operation and management of the NAFO Secretariat in each of the fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; (i) how much did all other NAFO Contracting Parties contribute directly to the operation and management of the NAFO Secretariat in each year from 2007 to 2010; (j) using data supplied in response to subquestions (d) to (i) and using the newly adopted and revised contribution formula for the Contracting Parties adopted by NAFO, what would be an estimate of the Canadian financial contribution to NAFO in 2010 and 2011 and what would be the contribution of each of the other NAFO Contracting Parties in those same years; (k) which NAFO Contracting Parties have filed formal objections to any of NAFO’s management decisions in 2010 and for 2011, what was the original NAFO management decision being objected to and the nature of the objection from the Contracting Party, as well as specific details of the unilateral fishing plan taken by the objecting Contracting Party for each of the years 2007, 2008 and 2009; (l) how many Canadian citations, NAFO Contracting Party citations or NAFO citations have been issued against fishing vessels of Contracting Parties that were believed to be fishing contrary to NAFO requirements within the NAFO regulatory area, which of these citations resulted in convictions of these fishing vessels, which jurisdiction was responsible for prosecuting these infractions and what penalty was assessed as a result of these convictions in each of the years 2007, 2008 and 2009; (m) what was the total number of at-sea fishing days of NAFO Contracting Party fishing vessels operating in the NAFO regulatory area for NAFO regulated species, broken down by Contracting Party; and (n) what was the total number of at-sea fishing days within the NAFO regulatory area conducting on Non-Contracting Parties to the NAFO Convention in each of the years 2007, 2008 and 2009?

Q-8242 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the investigation and prosecution of all licensed Canadian sealers who were charged under the Fisheries Act or the Marine Mammal Regulations as a result of actions taken by the sealers during the 1996 harvest of a category of Hooded Seals known as “Bluebacks”: (a) how many licensed sealers were originally charged due to actions arising from the harvesting of this class of Hooded Seal; (b) what was the final year in which the prosecution of any sealer from this group concluded; (c) how many were convicted of any offence during the course of this prosecution and what were they convicted of; (d) with what specific regulation or statutory provision were they originally charged and what regulation or statutory provision were they convicted of; (e) what is the total cost of both the investigation and the prosecution of these charges, broken down by each department or agency involved in any aspect of the investigation or prosecution of these charges; and (f) what is the description of any changes made to the Marine Mammal Regulations subsequent to the conclusion of these cases and originating from circumstances made clear during the course of this investigation and prosecution?

Q-8252 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — With regard to the operations of Marine Atlantic Incorporated: (a) what was the total revenue collected by the corporation from commercial vehicle traffic resulting from cancellation penalties and late arrival fees in 2010; (b) what was the total revenue collected from commercial truck traffic resulting from the limited, special reservation allocation for commercial truck traffic; (c) what was the total value of refunds and customer courtesy fee waivers provided by the corporation due to scheduling issues and late departures or arrivals of its vessels; (d) what was the on-time performance of Marine Atlantic Incorporated’s ferries in 2008, 2009 and 2010 on each scheduled crossing for each ferry within its fleet; and (e) what was the total revenue resulting from drop trailer storage in the yards at North Sydney, Port aux Basques and Argentia, respectively?

Q-8262 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's programs AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriRecovery and AgriInsurance: (a) what is the total amount of program funds dispersed to producers since 2004, broken down by program and (i) year, (ii) province and year, (iii) riding and year, (iv) sector and year, (v) commodity and year; (b) how many producers have made use of each of these programs since 2004, broken down by program and (i) year, (ii) province and year, (iii) riding and year, (iv) sector and year, (v) commodity and year; (c) broken down by program, province and year, for each year since 2004, what was the staff complement for each program; (d) broken down by program, province and year, for each year since 2004, what was the field staff complement for each program; (e) broken down by program and year, for each year since 2004, what was the ratio of program administration to producer funding; (f) broken down by program, what commodities are currently not covered by these programs; (g) broken down by program, what commodities have been added since each program's inception; (h) how much has been spent by each program on outside consultants since 2004, broken down by program and by (i) year, (ii) individual contract description, contracted company and amount; (i) for each program, what benchmarks are used to measure; (j) what benchmarks have been achieved, broken down by program and year, for each year since 2004; and (k) what benchmarks have not been achieved, broken down by program and year, for each year since 2004?

Q-8272 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to government expenditures in the communities of Niagara, on an annual basis and broken down by department, what is the amount spent: (a) in the ridings of Welland, Niagara West—Glanbrook and Haldimand—Norfolk from 2004 up to and including the current fiscal year; (b) in the former riding of Erie—Lincoln between 1997 and 2004; (c) in the former riding of Erie between 1993 and 1997; and (d) in the ridings of Niagara Falls and St. Catharines from 1993 up to and including the current fiscal year?

Q-8282 — December 15, 2010 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With respect to the Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health: (a) what is the total amount of funding dedicated to the initiative, broken down by destination country, project name and project duration; (b) how will the funding be monitored and tracked; (c) how much of the funding is new; (d) how much of the funding is existing, broken down by source; (e) what benchmarks are being used to evaluate the project; (f)what evaluations or reports exist about the project; (g) how much of the funding will be delivered bilaterally; (h) how much of the funding will be delivered through multilateral agencies; (i) how much funding will be delivered in partnership with civil society; and (j) what are the criteria for receiving funding?

Q-8292 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — With respect to the distribution of jobs in the government and all federal organizations in the National Capital Region: (a) how many jobs were there on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region in 2010; and (b) how many jobs were there on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region in 2010?

Q-8302 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With respect to railway shipping service in Canada: (a) what analysis has the government conducted on the impacts of rail shipment rates on the forestry, mining, agricultural and manufacturing sectors; (b) what analysis does the government conduct on the impacts of the lack of competition in the railway sector on remote and northern communities; (c) has the government begun drafting legislation and regulations for the railway service industry to address the recommendations of the Rail Freight Service Review Panel’s Interim Report; (d) what is the government’s response to the request by the Coalition of Rail Shippers to implement regulatory changes immediately; (e) what is the government’s position on appointing a facilitator to assist in negotiations between railways and shippers; and (f) when will the government provide a response to the final report of the Rail Freight Service Review Panel?

Q-8312 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With respect to biofuels: (a) what is the total funding amount that the government has committed to programs supporting biofuels since 2006; (b) how is this spending broken down by program, recipient project (including project description) and fiscal year (including future spending already committed); (c) what is the contribution from the private sector and from other levels of government to each project funded; (d) what are the expected greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions resulting from federal funding of biofuel projects; (e) what GHG reductions have been achieved to date from biofuel projects funded by the government; and (f) how much energy has been produced by biofuel projects funded by the government?

Q-8322 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With respect to carbon capture and storage (CCS): (a) what is the total funding amount that the government has committed to CCS since 2006; (b) how is this spending broken down by project and fiscal year (including future spending already committed); (c) what is the contribution from the private sector and from other levels of government to each project funded; (d) what are the expected greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions resulting from federal funding of CCS projects; (e) what is the projected rate of GHG reduction per dollar of federal funding invested; and (f) what GHG reductions have been achieved to date from CCS projects funded by the government?

Q-8332 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to Crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions: (a) what is the annual salary paid to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of each Crown corporation, agency, board and commission; (b) how many full-time equivalents have worked in the office of the CEO at each Crown corporation, agency, board and commission from 2006 to date; (c) how was funding spent on the operations for each CEO's office at each Crown corporation, agency, board and commission from 2006 to date; (d) what is the total amount of performance bonuses paid to each CEO of each Crown corporation, agency, board and commission from 2006 to date; (e) to what privileges and pension benefits are CEOs of Crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions entitled; and (f) how much money did the government spend on retreats for CEOs and senior management of Crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions from 2006 to date?

Q-8342 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) investigation of the Caribbean-based investment fund known as St. Lawrence Trading Inc.: (a) does the CRA know the identities of all Canadians with investments in the fund; (b) does the CRA know the identities of the six prominent Canadian business families with holdings of as much as $900 million in that fund and, if so, what are they; (c) how many Canadians are involved in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund in total; (d) what are the key reasons the CRA has been unable to obtain the information it needs to determine whether evasion of Canadian taxes has taken place; (e) what are the impediments to identification by the CRA of all those Canadians involved in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund; (f) how much tax does the CRA estimate that Canadian individuals who invested in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund have failed to pay; (g) how much tax does the CRA estimate that Canadian families with investments in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund have failed to pay; (h) how much tax has been recovered from each Canadian individual and family that invested in St. Lawrence Trading Inc.; and (i) what is the estimated cost of the CRA’s investigation of the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund to date?

Q-8352 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to government monitoring of the working and labour conditions in oil sands areas: (a) what is the total number of injuries reported or registered by the responsible government departments from 2006 to date; (b) what departments, agencies and commissions are responsible for monitoring working safety conditions in the oil sands; (c) how many inspections of the work safety conditions in oil sands production sites were conducted by each department, agency or commission from 2006 to date; (d) what are the major issues associated with working conditions at the oil sands production sites; (e) what types of injuries are common at the oil sands working sites; (f) from 2006 to date, what is the average crime rate in communities where oil sands production is ongoing; and (g) how much money did the government spend on monitoring and regulating safety conditions in the oil sands production sites, for each department, agency and commission?

Q-8362 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to federal lands in Pickering, Ontario: (a) what is the status of the Needs Assessment Study for a potential Pickering Airport, which Transport Canada (TC) commissioned the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) to complete, and what are its primary recommendations; (b) will it be released to the public and, if so, when; (c) is there a way a Member of Parliament can obtain a copy of the study and, if so, how; (d) has the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities determined the government's official position concerning the proposal by the GTAA to develop an airport on federal lands in Pickering Lands and, if so, what is it; (e) if the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has not yet determined the official position, when will he; (f) was Transport Canada made aware of the recent announcement made by the Sifton family, owners of the Buttonville airport in Markham, that the airport will close before the announcement was made in November 2010 and has Transport Canada been working with the Sifton Family on this matter; (g) how will this development impact decisions concerning federal lands in Pickering; (h) will the government agree to consult with the Member of Parliament for Ajax—Pickering and the community on any future demolition proposal before any final decision is taken; (i) what are the government's plans to preserve, restore and protect structures deemed as heritage structures by the City of Pickering or advisors to the City, including the houses located at 5050 Sideline 24, the “Richardson-Will House”, 840 Concession 8 Road, the “Stouffville Christian School”, 5413 Sideline 30, the “Century City”, 429 Concession 8 Road, the “Tran House”, 140 Concession 7 Road, the “Michell House” or “Perennial Gardens”, 5165 Sideline 22, 1095 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline, the “Hammond House”, 5245 Sideline 28, the "Hoover-Watson" House, 635 Uxbridge-Pickering, the "Worker’s Cottages", and the Bentley-Carruthers House, located at Concession 8/Sideline 32, which Transport Canada initially agreed to protect but boarded up in December 2010; (j) does the government have any plans to reinstate the Transport Canada Heritage Working Group; and (k) does the government have any plans to rescind the no-re-rental policy on residential structures and begin to re-rent residential properties when they become vacant?

Q-8372 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to the Canadian Firearms Program: (a) how many long guns have been seized since the inception of the long-gun registry and, of those seized, how many were registered and how many were unregistered; (b) how many long-guns have been seized from individuals as a result of a diagnosed mental illness or emotional instability and, of those, how many were registered and how many were not; (c) how many long-guns have been seized from individuals who have been charged with a violent or serious criminal offense, what were those criminal offenses, broken down by category and, of those, how many of the long-guns seized were registered and how many were not; (d) how many long-guns have been seized from individuals who have been charged or convicted of spousal abuse or domestic violence of any kind and, of those guns seized, how many were registered and how many were not; and (e) how many long-guns have been seized for other reasons than those mentioned above, what are those reasons, and how many of the seized weapons were registered and how many were not?

Q-8382 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to correctional programming provided by Correctional Services Canada (CSC): (a) what are the reasons that explain the sharp decrease in the number of inmates participating in the Living Skills Program since 2000-2001; (b) what are the reasons that explain the sharp increase in the number of inmates participating in the Violent Offenders Program since 2000-2001; (c) how many offenders who are required to participate in correctional programs refuse to participate, broken down by year, since 2000-2001; (d) what are the reasons that explain the sharp decrease in the number of inmates participating in the Substance Abuse Program since 2000-2001; (e) how many offenders are diagnosed on intake as having a substance abuse problem for which they require treatment; (f) how many inmates are otherwise believed by CSC to have an addictions issues; (g) what course of action does CSC take when an inmate diagnosed with an addiction refuses to participate in Substance Abuse programming; (h) what is the cost per inmate to participate in the Substance Abuse Program, broken down per year since 2000-2001; (i) how is CSC programming addressing mentally ill inmates and their associated behavioural issues; (j) on what basis does CSC decide which programs will be offered at which institutions; (k) how does CSC ensure that inmates will have access to the programs they need if all programs are not offered at every institution; (l) in light of the CSC statement that it “will not be expanding the types of programs offered to offenders,” how will CSC meet the diverse needs of the growing inmate population; (m) does CSC have plans to cut the number of programs available to inmates and, if so, which programs and when; (n) what is the Integrated Correctional Program Model, how is it administered to inmates and what current CSC programs will it replace; (o) what are the reasons that explain the increase of inmates participating in the Sex Offender Program in 2009-2010; (p) how many inmates, broken down by year since 2000-2001, have been evaluated by CSC and have been found to require sex offender programming and how many of those inmates have participated in Sex Offender programming, broken down by year since 2000-2001; (q) what is the cost per inmate to participate in the Sex Offender Program, broken down per year since 2000-2001; (r) what is the per inmate spending on correctional programs, broken down annually since 2000-2001; (s) with regard to other correctional intervention programs, broken down per year since 2000-2001, what is the per inmate spending each of the following programs: (i) Offender Case management, (ii) Community Engagement, (iii) Spiritual Services, (iv) Offender Education, (v) CORCAN Employment and Employability; and (t) what is the Correctional Reintegration Program, what does it do and where is it available?

Q-8392 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Holland (Ajax—Pickering) — With regard to the government’s support for victims of crime: (a) how do each of the following bills directly assist victims of crime: Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act, 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-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-43, An Act to enact the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations Modernization Act and to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act, Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interception of private communications and related warrants and orders), Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, Bill C-52, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations, Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts, Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act, Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and Bill S-13, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America; (b) were victims groups consulted in the development of any of these bills and, if so, which groups where consulted, on which bills and what advice was given to the government; (c) broken down per year since 2000-2001, what programs specifically directed to victims of crime has the government funded, how many victims have been served by these programs and how are these services accessed by victims of crime; (d) what is the funding, broken down per year over the past 10 years and over the next 10 years, for grants and contributions for victims of crime; (e) what is the formal position of the government concerning the role that rehabilitation plays in reducing victimization; (f) what is the formal position of the government concerning the role that crime prevention programming plays in reducing victimization; and ( g) what empirical evidence does the government have that mandatory minimum sentences will address the needs of victims of crime?

Q-8402 — December 15, 2010 — Ms. Hall Findlay (Willowdale) — With respect to the ongoing process to acquire 65 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF): (a) which engine will the government be selecting; (b) what analysis has been conducted in terms of engine selection; (c) when was the analysis done; (d) what analysis has been done in regard to the maintenance of the stealth frame and what are the expected maintenance costs; (e) what is the expected cost difference per plane between acquiring the first quantity of JSFs under a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phase and the JSFs bought in the last year of acquisition; (f) will the initial JSFs purchased by Canada have the same operational capability as the later purchases or will they require upgrades; (g) what would be the cost to upgrade the first JSF acquired by Canada to the same level of capabilities as the 65th JSF acquired by Canada; and (h) will Lockheed Martin or the United States pay for any upgrades necessary to ensure that Canada’s first JSF has the same operational capabilities as the last one delivered to it?

Q-8412 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) — With regard to the government’s planned purchase of 65 F-35 aircraft and other purchase options made available for the government's consideration: (a) when was the decision taken by the government to approve this purchase; (b) what was the quoted unit price given to the government at that time; (c) what was the estimated cost of maintenance and in-service support over a period of 20 years at that time; (d) what were the estimated industrial benefits to Canada at the time in terms of dollars and jobs; (e) what other purchase options were made available for the government's consideration; (f) what was the quoted unit price for each other aircraft option at the time; (g) what was the estimated cost for maintenance and in-service support covering a period of 20 years for each option at the time; and (h) what were the estimated industrial benefits to Canada at the time in terms of dollars and jobs?

Q-8422 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) — With regard to comments made by the Minister of National Defence at the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence on September 15, 2010: (a) what companies, associations, ministries or groups own the copyright mentioned by the Minister in regards to the Statement of requirements for the replacement of the CF-18s; (b) did any aircraft manufacturer have any input of any kind into the drafting of this Statement of requirements and, if so, which ones; and (c) what is the official policy on Requirement documents published by the Department of National Defence and its accessibility to Members of Parliament?

Q-8432 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) — With regard to the Employment Insurance pilot projects known as the “the best 14 weeks”, “working while on claim” and “additional five weeks”: (a) how much, by year, has each of these initiatives cost the government; (b) how many people, by federal riding, year and initiative, made use of these initiatives; (c) how many people, by federal riding, would have seen their Employment Insurance payment diminish without the existence of these projects in 2009; and (d) what would have been, by federal riding, the average difference between the Employment Insurance payment people received under these pilot projects and the amount they would have received had these pilot projects not existed in 2009?

Q-8442 — December 15, 2010 — Ms. Hall Findlay (Willowdale) — With respect to the discussions with the Republic of Panama concerning a double taxation agreement and a sharing of financial information, as well as discussions concerning an agreement to share financial information, what are (i) the details of the meetings, (ii) the dates, (iii) the details of the correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Panama?

Q-8462 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — With regard to Rights and Democracy, provided that if identifying an individual by name is impossible on privacy grounds, he or she would be identified by a number: (a) what are all the positions that were filled by appointments or contract awards made by the Conservative government since 2006, within or outside the organization, but which deal directly with the organization (e.g., private investigators), specifying at what time each position was created and what justified its creation; (b) where do those positions fit in the organization's hierarchical chart and, when outside the organization, what is their relation with the organization; (c) what criteria did the government use to select candidates for each of those positions, and how were those criteria determined; (d) who were the individuals or firms appointed to fill each of those positions; (e) who were the other individuals or firms that were interviewed or considered by the government for those positions; (f) which of the individuals identified in parts (d) and (e) have held contracts awarded by, worked for, volunteered for, or run for a federal political party, identifying the position held and work done, the timeframe in which it took place and the name of the party; (g) which of the individuals identified in parts (d) and (e) have held governmental appointments in the past, identifying the position held and work done, the timeframe in which it took place, and the name of the appointing political party, Minister, or public office holder; (h) who were the Rights and Democracy employees who left the organization since January 2006, specifying at what date they were hired, what responsibilities they had within the organization, where they fit in the organization's hierarchical chart, at what date they left and the reason for their departure; (i) who were the individuals hired by Rights and Democracy, internally or as subcontractors, since January 2006, specifying at what date they were hired, what responsibilities they have within the organization, and where they fit in the organization's hierarchical chart; (j) which of the individuals identified in part (i) have held contracts awarded by, worked for, volunteered for, or run for a federal political party, identifying the position held and work done, the timeframe in which it took place and the name of the party; (k) which of the individuals identified in part (i) have held governmental appointments in the past, identifying the position held and work done, the timeframe in which it took place and the name of the appointing political party, Minister, or public office holder; (l) with regard to all the contracts awarded by the government since 2006 for studies, investigations or audits involving Rights and Democracy, (i) what were they, (ii) what was the value of each contract, and what was the objective of the study, investigation or audit, (iii) to whom was each contract awarded and based on what criteria, (iv) what was the process used to select the contract recipient, (v) what were the conclusions and recommendations of each of those studies, investigations and audits, (vi) when was each of those studies, investigations and audits made public, (vii) if a study, investigation or audit has not been made public, why, (viii) when was the government provided with the report on each of the studies, investigations or audits, and which government members were provided with the report or a briefing on the report; (m) what were the conclusions and recommendations of the Sirco investigation; and (n) what were the conclusions and recommendations of the forensic audit done by Samson Bélair-Deloitte & Touche?

Q-8472 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — With regard to shoreline erosion: (a) what are all the studies undertaken, ordered or consulted by the government since 2000 to study or take under advisement the problem of eroding shorelines along the St. Lawrence River; (b) for each of the studies referred to in (a), (i) who ordered it, (ii) who carried it out, (iii) when was it ordered and when was it delivered, (iv) what stakeholders, e.g., mayors, regional groups of elected officials, companies, lobbyists, etc., were consulted during its preparation, (v) to whom was it submitted; (c) for each of the studies referred to in (a), (i) what suggestions and recommendations were made in it, (ii) which of these suggestions and recommendations have been adopted by the government, (iii) what are the government programs dedicated to implementing the suggestions and recommendations identified in point (c)(ii), (iv) which suggestions and recommendations identified in point (c)(i) were rejected and why; (d) since 2006, for each fiscal year and for each riding bordering the St. Lawrence, as well as for all ridings affected by shoreline erosion on the East Coast, identifying the federal program from which the funding came and listing the amounts by riding, by year, by program, by riding and year, by riding and program, by year and program, and by riding, year and program, where possible, (i) how much did the federal government spend in that riding during the given year on the suggestions and recommendations identified in point (c)(ii), (ii) how much in total did the federal government spend in that riding during the given year to combat shoreline erosion; (e) how does the government explain differences between the answers to points (d)(i) and (d)(ii); and (f) what studies are currently underway to enable the government to monitor the problem of the St. Lawrence’s eroding shorelines?

Q-8482 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — With regard to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, since the beginning of Canada’s participation: (a) what was the first evaluation of the acquisition cost-per-plane Canada would pay, (i) when was that evaluation made, (ii) based on what information was it made, (iii) who provided the government with that information, (iv) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (v) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vi) what is the topic of that document, (vii) which government members were provided with that information; (b) for every subsequent re-evaluation of the acquisition cost-per-plane that Canada would pay and up to the government's current evaluation, (i) what was the new evaluation (ii) when was that evaluation made, (iii) based on what information was it made, (iv) who provided the government with that information, (v) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (vi) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vii) what is the topic of that document, (viii) which government members were provided with that information, (ix) as precisely as possible, what new information prompted the re-evaluation; (c) what was the first evaluation of the maintenance and repair cost-per-plane Canada would have to incur, (i) when was that evaluation made, (ii) based on what information was it made, (iii) who provided the government with that information, (iv) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (v) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vi) what is the topic of that document, (vii) which government members were provided with that information; (d) for every subsequent re-evaluation of the maintenance and repair cost-per-plane that Canada would have to incur and up to the government's current evaluation, (i) what was the new evaluation, (ii) when was that evaluation made, (iii) based on what information was it made, (iv) who provided the government with that information, (v) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (vi) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vii) what is the topic of that document, (viii) which government members were provided with that information, (ix) as precisely as possible, what new information prompted the re-evaluation; (e) what was the first evaluation of the total cost of Canada's purchase and maintenance of the planes and Canada's participation in the JSF program, (i) when was that evaluation made, (ii) based on what information was it made, (iii) who provided the government with that information, (iv) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (v) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vi) what is the topic of that document, (vii) which government members were provided with that information; (f) for every subsequent re-evaluation of the total cost of Canada's purchase and maintenance of the planes and Canada's participation in the JSF program and up to the government's current evaluation, (i) what was the new evaluation, (ii) when was that evaluation made, (iii) based on what information was it made, (iv) who provided the government with that information, (v) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (vi) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vii) what is the topic of that document, (viii) which government members were provided with that information, (ix) as precisely as possible, what new information prompted the re-evaluation; (g) what was the first evaluation of the date of delivery to Canada for the F-35s, (i) when was that evaluation made, (ii) based on what information was it made, (iii) who provided the government with that information, (iv) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefingnote, etc.), (v) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vi) what is the topic of that document, (vii) which government members were provided with that information; and (h) for every subsequent re-evaluation of the date of delivery to Canada for the F-35s and up to government's current evaluation, (i) what was the new evaluation, (ii) when was that evaluation made, (iii) based on what information was it made, (iv) who provided the government with that information, (v) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (vi) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vii) what is the topic of that document, (viii) which government members were provided with that information, (ix) as precisely as possible, what new information prompted the re-evaluation?

Q-8492 — December 15, 2010 — Mr. Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville) — With regard to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, since the beginning of Canada's participation: (a) what are the criteria (operational requirements, contractual conditions, etc.) on which the government is selecting the F-35s as a replacement for the CF-18s; (b) when and by whom were those criteria determined; (c) what are the relevant studies which were conducted prior to determining those criteria, specifying the (i) dates, (ii) names of the studies, (iii) names of individuals requesting the studies, (iv) authors of the studies, (v) names of the individuals presented with the results; (d) before those criteria were determined, on the basis of what information did the government evaluate that the F-35 could satisfy Canada's needs; (e) since the beginning of Canada's participation in the JSF program, what were all the studies conducted that evaluated different fighter planes in relation to Canada's needs, specifying the (i) dates, (ii) names of the studies, (iii) names of individuals requesting the studies, (iv) authors of the studies, (v) studies which were used to evaluate the planes, (vi) names of the individuals who determined those criteria, (vii) planes which were considered in the study, (viii) names of the individuals presented with the results; (f) what is the operational availability of a fleet of 65 fighter jets; (g) what effect will a reduction in Canada's fleet of fighter jets have on operational capability, on Canada's ability to play its role within the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) and on the distribution of fighter jets across Canada's military bases; (h) how did the government determine that the Canadian Forces needs 65 planes; (i) what is the formula used to determine the number of planes Canada should buy and who is the author of that formula; (j) for each of the variables in that formula, how was the value of that variable determined, specifying by whom, based on which criteria and how those criteria were determined; (k) what is the definition of a fifth generation fighter jet; (l) what is the history of the "fifth generation" appellation; (m) of the criteria identified in part (a), which ones can only be met by a fifth generation fighter; (n) which governmental officials were directly involved in the JSF competition; (o) does this competition satisfy the government's procurement guidelines, specifying which guidelines it satisfies and which it does not; (p) how is such a competition different from a public tender; (q) what are all the types of incremental costs associated with maintaining a plane with stealth capability, compared to a similar plane without stealth capability (for example security of storage facilities, special training for pilots, maintenance of stealth capability elements, etc.); (r) what is the expected value of each of those types of incremental costs over the expected life of the F-35s, in Canada's case; (s) what is the sum of those expected values; (t) what is the current expected value of industrial benefits that will befall Canada's aerospace industry if the government buys F-35s; (u) what is the probability distribution which yields this expected value; (v) what is the reasoning behind this probability distribution; (w) expressed as a percentage, what proportion of those benefits identified in (t) is constituted by guaranteed benefits; (x) what are the guaranteed benefits; (y) what proportion of the benefits identified in (t) and in (x) would Canada necessarily forego if the government bought another fighter plane; (z) what is an itemization of the (i) expected, (ii) guaranteed benefits that Canada's industry would necessarily have to forego if the government does not buy the F-35, including dollar values and total sums; (aa) how has the government's evaluation of the information sought in (t) evolved since the beginning of Canada's participation in the JSF program; (bb) on what date did that evaluation change; (cc) what is the name and topic of the governmental document containing that evaluation and which government member was provided with the document; and (dd) what is the new, detailed information which prompted the re-evaluation?

Q-8502 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Coderre (Bourassa) — With regard to the operation of the Canadian Tourism Commission for the past ten fiscal years: (a) what has been the government's contribution for each year; (b) what amount of money was earmarked for administration; (c) what amount of money was earmarked for marketing as a whole for (i) special projects, (ii) targeted countries or regions within an area, (iii) targeted events; (d) how much money was spent promoting specific special events within Canada such as the 2010 Olympics and what was the breakdown of how the marketing money was spent; (e) how is the efficiency of this marketing spending determined; and (f) what criteria are used to determine if a specific event, destination, or targeted country or area should receive marketing dollars?

Q-8512 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Coderre (Bourassa) — With regard to the government's lifting of the protected area designation of the Edehzhie area of the Northwest Territories, were any Members of Parliament, cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, deputy ministers, director generals, or members of cabinet ministers' staff or parliamentary secretaries' staff lobbied by, or did they communicate in any way with, Olivut Investments, Lani Keough or any agents or lobbyists acting on behalf of either Olivut Investments or Lani Keough about opening the Edehzhie Candidate Protected Area for exploration or mining development?

Q-8522 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche) — With respect to the contract awarded for sending letters to employment insurance offices about the 20 additional weeks of benefits announced in the new employment insurance measures for long-tenured workers: (a) was a call for tenders held for this contract and, if so, where and on what date; (b) what companies bid on the contract; (c) what is the name of the company to which the contract was awarded and on what date was the contract awarded; and (d) what is the total value of the contract?

Q-8532 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche) — With respect to the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Incentive Program for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010: (a) by province, what is the percentage of approved applications; (b) by province, what is the percentage of approved applications in response to an appeal of a decision; (c) what is the waiting period, broken down by province, for assessment of (i) claims for refundable credits, (ii) adjustment of refundable credits as required by the claimant, (iii) claims for non-refundable credits, (iv) adjustment of non-refundable credits as required by the claimant; and (d) what is the waiting period for assessment of an appeal following receipt by the CRA of a claim, broken down by province?

Q-8542 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With respect to the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality 2008-2013, broken down by year: (a) what were the expenditures of each department involved; and (b) to what line item were these expenditures charged?

Q-8552 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With respect to parliamentary officers, for the past 10 years, what were the expenditures of each officer, broken down by officer and by year?

Q-8562 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With respect to language training, for each fiscal year from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010: (a) what were the government’s expenditures, broken down by administrative region, on the language training of public servants for the learning of (i) French, (ii) English; (b) what were the amounts, broken down by administrative region, paid out by the government to third parties for the language training of public servants for the learning of (i) French, (ii) English; and (c) what are the names of the third parties that received funding for this purpose?

Q-8572 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With regard to travel to Vancouver, British Columbia, 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-8582 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — What is the total amount of government infrastructure funding, allocated within the constituency of Thunder Bay—Superior North in fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to date, identifying each department or agency, project and amount, including the date allocated?

Q-8592 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — With regard to the Italian-Canadian Advisory Committee of the Community Historical Recognition Program: (a) who are the members of the committee; (b) what criteria were used by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to select the members; (c) what are the specific qualifications of each member as identified by the department; (d) are the members being compensated for their services and, if so, how much is each member being paid; (e) were any other individuals considered to serve on the committee and, if so, what are their names; (f) of the individuals considered to serve on the committee who are not currently on the committee, were any contacted by the department and, if so, what are their names and qualifications; and (g) were any of the individuals in (f) offered a place on the committee by the department and, if so, (i) what are their names and qualifications, (ii) what were their reasons for refusing the offer?

Q-8602 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — With regard to projects pertaining to the Italian-Canadian cultural community and the Community Historical Recognition Program (CHRP): (a) how many applications for CHRP grants and contributions related to such projects have been (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) rejected; (b) for each application 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; and (c) for each application 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?

Q-8612 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — With regard to the Community Historical Recognition Program (CHRP): (a) how much money was spent informing the Canadian public about the application criteria for the portion of the program that pertains to the Italian-Canadian cultural community and how were these monies spent; and (b) were any monies spent advertising the portion of the CHRP pertaining to the Italian-Canadian cultural community through private organizations and, if so, (i) which private organizations (i.e., newspaper, radio station, community group, etc.) were contracted by the government for this end, (ii) how much money was spent by the government to advertise with each private organization?

Q-8622 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — With regard to the Italian-Canadian Advisory Committee of the Community Historical Recognition Program (CHRP): (a) how often has the committee convened itself to discuss applications and on what specific dates; (b) what internal procedures has the committee put in place to vet applications; (c) has the committee kept records of their deliberations and, if so, what are the contents of these records; (d) how much money has the government allocated to the committee to fulfill its mandate; and (e) what is the total cost to date that the committee has incurred in order to fulfil its mandate, including (i) the item-by-item breakdown of these costs, (ii) the expenses that were reimbursed by the government, (iii) the expenses that were rejected by the government and the reasons for rejecting them?

Q-8632 — January 27, 2011 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With regard to the following two Catalogue Numbers, A114-12/2009 (ISBN: 978-1-100-50445-2) and A114-12/2007 (ISBN: 978-0-662-49839-1), of the publication entitled “Rural Canadians’ Guide to Programs and Services”, a publication from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Canada’s Rural Secretariat Branch: (a) when was each paper edition published; (b) when was each paper edition released for distribution; (c) were both publications available to the public and, if yes, what measures were implemented to make the public aware of each publication; (d) which companies were awarded the contracts to print each edition of the publication; (e) what were the amounts of the contracts for the printing of each edition of the publication; (f) which departments authorized the publication of each edition; (g) which departments authorized the contracts for the printing of each publication; (h) how many paper copies of each edition were printed initially; (i) have more paper copies been printed since the initial printing of these editions; (j) what was the total number of paper copies of each edition requested between (i) January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, (ii) January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, (iii) January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, (iv) January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010; (k) what was the total number of paper copies of each edition distributed between (i) January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, (ii) January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, (iii) January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, (iv) January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010; (l) what is the maximum number of paper copies of each edition that can be ordered by (i) an individual, (ii) a private business, (iii) a public organisation, such as a public library, a university, etc., (iv) a person who holds public office, such as a city councillor, mayor or reeve, MLA or MPP, MP, etc.; (m) can the maximum number of copies in (l) be increased with the permission of departmental authorities and, if yes, who would authorize such an increase in the distribution of each edition; (n) what was the total number of paper copies of each edition distributed to each parliamentarian between (i) January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, (ii) January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, (iii) January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, (iv) January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010; and (o) for each of the periods between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, and between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, identifying for each request which of the two editions was requested, what was the (i) name of each parliamentarian who requested paper copies of either edition, (ii) number of paper copies requested by that parliamentarian, (iii) date the request was made by that parliamentarian, (iv) number of paper copies received by that parliamentarian, (v) date those copies were received by that parliamentarian?

Q-8642 — January 31, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to mental health and suicide in the Canadian Forces (CF), including regular forces, reservists and veterans, as well as among Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) veterans: (a) what does history and research show from the First World War (WWI) and the Second World War (WWII), regarding the percentage of Canadian veterans who suffered some degree of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and how it might have impacted their ability to (i) hold down jobs, (ii) maintain relationships, (iii) overcome substance abuse, (iv) maintain their will to live; (b) how are suicides tracked for CF regular forces, reservists and veterans, including RCMP veterans, (i) has the tracking method changed over time (from 2000 onwards) for any of these groups, including name changes (e.g., suicide versus sudden death) and, if so, how, why and when, (ii) how are suicides tracked among veterans who may not be known to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) and who may be under other types of care (e.g., in hospitals) or in homeless shelters, prisons, etc.; (c) what are the identified gaps in tracking for each of the identified groups and, for each gap, what action items (i) are planned (including predicted start and completion dates, and necessary funding), (ii) are being implemented (including predicted completion date and necessary funding), (iii) have been completed to address the problem; (d) how are suicides investigated for each identified group today and, for each group, for the years 1990 to the present (or years available), (i) what percentage of victims were known to either the Department of National Defense (DND) or VAC prior to the suicide, or to the medical, social-aid or prison system, (ii) what percentage had attempted suicide before, (iii) what percentage suffered from an identified Operational Stress Injury (OSI), including PTSD, anxiety, depression or substance abuse, (iv) what percentage suffered from acquired brain injury (ABI), (v) what, if any, relation was found between the number of traumatic events and suicide, (vi) what percentage were under mental health care counselling, (vii) what percentage were under addictions counselling, (viii) what percentage had been discharged for misconduct, (ix) what percentage had called the crisis help line in the month before the suicide, (x) what percentage had seen their physician in the month before the suicide, (xi) in what percentage of deaths might it have been possible to intervene, (xii) what percentage had experience with any of the suicide education and awareness programs, and screening and assessment, (xiii) what percentage had had follow-up care for suicide attempts, (xiv) what percentage had had restriction of access to lethal means; (e) do DND and VAC try to determine the trigger for a suicide and, if so, (i) what are the broad triggers (e.g., financial problems, relationship breakdowns, substance abuse, tensions with other members of the unit, traumatic event, etc.), (ii) is trigger information included in suicide prevention programs, (iii) is it possible to identify how military service might have generally impacted the mental and physical health of the victim and, if so, is it possible to reduce these impacts; (f) what are the suicide statistics for each identified group, namely CF regular forces and reservists, and veterans, including RCMP veterans, for the last 10 years, 20 years and, if possible, back to 1972, (i) broken down by gender and by five-year age group, (ii) for each group, how does the data compare with that of the general Canadian population; (g) for five-year periods, for the years 1972 to present (or years available), for every CF suicide identified, how many members of the CF were hospitalized, on average, for attempting to take their own life; (h) for five-year periods, for the years 1972 to present (or years available), for every veteran suicide identified, how many veterans were hospitalized, on average, for attempting to take their own life; (i) for five-year periods, for the years 1972 to present (or years available), what is the number of CF regular forces, reservists and veterans who died in auto accidents, and how much more likely is it that members who serve in Afghanistan will die in an auto accident or motorcycle crash than civilians; (j) how do DND and VAC report accidental drug-related overdoses, and for five-year periods, for the years 1972 to present (or years available), what is the number of CF members, reservists or veterans who died of accidental drug-related overdoses; (k) what, if any, mental health surveys have been undertaken by DND, particularly regarding suicide, (i) for what years, (ii) how many members were surveyed, (iii) what were the survey questions, (iv) what percentage of Air Force, Army, and Navy members had attempted suicide; (l) what, if any, mental health surveys have been undertaken by VAC regarding suicide, (i) for what years, (ii) how many veterans were surveyed, (iii) what were the survey questions, (iv) what percentage of former Air Force, Army, Navy and RCMP members had attempted suicide; (m) what, if any, surveys of health-related behaviours have been undertaken by DND, (i) how many CF members and reservists were surveyed and for what years, (ii) what were the survey questions, (iii) what percentage of Air Force, Army and Navy personnel showed dangerous levels of alcohol and drug abuse, such as abuse of pain killers; (n) what, if any, surveys of health-related behaviours have been undertaken by VAC, (i) how many CF and RCMP veterans were surveyed and for what years, (ii) what were the survey questions, (iii) what percentage of former Air Force, Army, Navy and RCMP personnel showed dangerous levels of alcohol abuse and the illicit use of drugs such as pain killers; (o) what percentage of CF members and reservists today have suicidal thoughts before seeking treatment and what percent have attempted to kill themselves; (p) what percentage of veterans today have suicidal thoughts before seeking treatment, and what percent have attempted to kill themselves; (q) how do DND and VAC explain any changes in the suicide statistics among any of the above groups in (f), (i) what specific practical steps have been undertaken by both DND and VAC to reduce the number of suicides for each identified group, (ii) how is success of these steps measured, (iii) what, if any, change have the identified steps made in the number of suicides; (r) how has operational tempo and number of tours impacted OSIs, particularly PTSD, as well as addictions, anxiety, and depression, and suicides for the groups identified, (i) what does research show the impacts of increased operational tempo and number of tours are, (ii) what recommendations are suggested by research to reduce these impacts, (iii) what, if any, steps has DND and VAC taken to implement these recommendations; (s) what, if any, health surveys have been undertaken regarding military service and physical demands on mental health (e.g., chronic pain, ABI, and sleep deprivation); (t) since the establishment of the 24-hour, seven-day-per-week suicide hotline, how many CF members, reservists, and veterans have been counselled, and how many suicides are estimated to have been prevented through the hotline; (u) how does DND reconcile its suicide statistics with those of Mr. Sartori, which are based on access to information requests, and what, if any, discussions have taken place with him regarding (i) the publication or presentation of his work, (ii) the implications of his work, (iii) what specific actions might be undertaken to reduce suicides; (v) what do CF members and reservists who seek mental health services risk (e.g., loss of duties, loss of security clearances and weapons, etc.), and how might these losses impact their career aspirations; (w) what specific efforts are being undertaken to reduce the stigma associated with a CF member or reservist seeking mental health help, (i) what, if any, efforts are being taken to review performance among officers, senior non-commissioned officers, etc., regarding mental health attitudes, (ii) what, if any, efforts are being taken to review military programs addressing mental health and suicide for quality and efficacy, (iii) are attitudes and delivery of mental health training and suicide prevention part of performance training and review and, if so, how important are they in the review, (iv) how often are people and programs reviewed; (x) what, if any, review has been undertaken of suicide prevention methods (e.g., mandatory mental health review every two years, confidential internet-based screening available any time) in the military of other countries for possible implementation in Canada; (y) what, if any, effort has been undertaken to interview CF members and reservists who have attempted suicide and their family members, (i) how many members and their families were surveyed, for what years, (ii) what were the survey questions, (iii) what were the results and recommendations; (z) what, if any, review has been undertaken of the DND's and VAC's efforts to prevent suicides among CF members, reservists and veterans, (i) how many were surveyed and what were the major findings, (ii) was trust measured and, if so, how, (iii) did members and veterans trust DND or VAC to help them, (iv) did members and veterans think suicide prevention training programs were successful and, if not, why not, (v) what percentage of servicemen and veterans came in for mental health help and, if they did not come, why did they not; (aa) what, if any, review has been undertaken of veteran transition programs for mental health training and suicide prevention training, and will successful programs be implemented across the country; (bb) what, if any, thought has been given to skills-based suicide prevention training for families; and (cc) what, if any, thought has been given to DND and VAC partnering with Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to undertake a comprehensive study of military and veteran mental health and suicide, (i) what would a comprehensive study cost to identify risk and protective factors for suicide among members, reservists and veterans, and provide evidence-based practical interventions to reduce suicide rates, (ii) what factors could be included (e.g., childhood adversity and abuse, family history, personal and economic stresses, military service, overall mental health)?

Q-8652 — January 31, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to cuts in government funding to newcomer settlement organizations: (a) how does this policy reflect Canada’s commitment to cultural diversity; (b) what, if any, needs assessments of newcomers to Canada have been undertaken over the last five years, if none were undertaken, why not, and of those undertaken, (i) when were they undertaken, (ii) by whom, (iii) what were the results, (iv) what were the chief recommendations; (c) what was the detailed process undertaken to examine funding of newcomer settlement programs, which led to the government's cuts; (d) over the past five years, how much money did the government promise to invest in newcomer settlement services, by province and territory, and what amount was actually invested in newcomer settlement services, by province and territory; (e) how was the decision to cut $53 million from newcomer settlement organizations made, (i) what were all the procedural steps in the decision-making process, (ii) what stakeholders were consulted, (iii) which departments were involved in the decision-making process, (iv) what formulas were used, (v) how was it determined that 85 percent of the cuts were necessary in Ontario; (f) what percentage of the Ontario cuts to newcomer settlement organizations were made in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA); (g) how many newcomers arrived in Canada in each of the last five years, (i) how many newcomers arrived in each of the provinces and territories, (ii) how many people settled in each of the provinces, (iii) how many people settled in each of Canada’s ten largest cities; (h) what information does the government have regarding the movement of newcomers from one province to another or from one city to another in the newcomers' first three years after arrival in Canada; (i) from which countries did the newcomers arrive in each of the last five years and, for each country identified, (i) what are the official languages spoken, (ii) is English or French one of the country’s official languages; (j) what services are needed by newcomers to Canada and what services are provided by settlement organizations in Canada, by province and territory; (k) what, if any, research has been undertaken in Canada regarding gaps in services, by province and territory, and (i) when was the gap analysis undertaken and by whom, (ii) what were the results and recommendations, by province and territory, (iii) if no such analysis has been conducted, why not; (l) for each province and territory, (i) how many settlement organizations exist, (ii) what services do they provide, (iii) what populations do they serve, (iv) how many settlement organizations applied for federal funding, and (v) how many organizations that applied had their federal funding increased, decreased, or cut; (m) for each GTA constituency, (i) what percentage of constituency inhabitants are newcomers, (ii) what percentage of constituency inhabitants are not yet citizens, (iii) what percentage of constituency inhabitants are first generation Canadian born, (iv) how do percentages in (i) to (iii) rank nationally amongst the 308 ridings, (v) did any consituency's settlement organizations receive an increase or a decrease in funding and, if so, in what amount; (n) for each group given in (m) (i) to (iii), what major challenges do they face, including, but not limited to, family reunification, and language and job barriers; (o) how were organizations informed of any funding decision, (i) what reasons were given for a denial, (ii) were complete contact details given so that an organization could ask for further feedback, (iii) if so, what were those details, (iv) if not, why not; (p) what programs in the GTA (i) had their funding decreased, (ii) had funding cut entirely, (iii) will have to close down; (q) for each identified program in (p) (i) to (iii), (i) what are the specific reasons for denial, (ii) is the program an essential or unique program; (r) which schools in the GTA provided newcomer services, including, but not limited to, "We Welcome the World Centres", and which schools had their funding increased or decreased and by how much; (s) for each school identified in (r), what percentage of students are (i) newcomers, (ii) newcomers who do not speak English or French as their first language; (t) what, if any, research was undertaken to determine the impact of any decreases or cuts to funding for schools in (r) and what were the projected impacts on (i) student learning, (ii) student test scores, (iii) school performance in relation to other Ontario schools, (iv) socio-economic status of families, (v) tertiary education; (u) what, if any, plans have been developed to absorb the thousands of newcomer families who will be impacted by a loss of newcomer settlement services, by (i) province and territory, (ii) specifically, Canada’s ten largest cities; (v) is there an appeals process to funding-related decisions and (i) if yes, what is it, (ii) if not, why not; (w) what, if any, impact analysis was undertaken to determine the socio-economic impacts of cuts to newcomer settlement services on (i) clients, (ii) their families, and (iii) the economy of the GTA, and Canada, (iv) what were the results and recommendations of any analysis; and (x) by province and territory, as of January 1, 2011, (i) how many organizations had been informed of a funding decision, (ii) how many organizations were under review, (iii) how many were still waiting to hear about funding?

Q-8662 — January 31, 2011 — Mr. Bagnell (Yukon) — With regard to Aboriginal Healing Foundation projects, since the end of government funding: (a) what new programs were put in place by Health Canada to ensure the continuation of services to victims of residential schools; (b) from new programs identified in (a), what are the Aboriginal Healing Foundation projects and, for each project, what is the approximate number of clients it serves; (c) which Health Canada project is now serving each of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation clients by (i) territory and province, (ii) reserve or designated client target group, (iii) funds budgeted for each project and targeted completion date, (iv) total budget for each territory and province; (d) what programs administered by Health Canada ended and who were their clients served, in which territory or province and how much was spent; and (e) if programs have not been developed by Health Canada for some former Aboriginal Healing Fund projects' clients, as per the government mandate, why have they not been developed and when will they be developed and implemented?

Q-8672 — February 1, 2011 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — With regard to criminal law amendments contained in legislation introduced in the 40th Parliament, Third Session, namely 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-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), Bill C-23A, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, and Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) was a gender-based analysis of the impacts of the proposed amendments undertaken before the legislation was introduced in Parliament; (b) if yes to question (a), (i) when was this analysis conducted, (ii) by whom was the analysis conducted, (iii) which indicators were used to determine the gender-based impact of the legislation, (iv) what was the conclusion of the analysis regarding the gender-based impacts of the proposed amendment; (c) if no to question (a), (i) does the government intend to undertake a gender-based analysis of the amendments, (ii) when will this analysis take place; and (d) did the Treasury Board Secretariat require that a gender-based analysis of the legislation be completed before the bill was introduced in Parliament?

Q-8682 — February 1, 2011 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — With regard to the government’s funding for crime prevention in Manitoba: (a) broken down by fiscal year since 2000-2001, what programs specifically directed at crime prevention has the government funded and what was the level of funding per program; (b) how many individuals participated in these programs, broken down by program and by year; (c) what is the formal position of the government concerning the role that crime prevention plays in reducing levels of gang violence and other types of crime; (d) what empirical evidence does the government have regarding the level of recidivism of individuals who have participated in crime prevention programs; and (e) what empirical evidence does the government have regarding the level of need for crime prevention programs?

Q-8692 — February 1, 2011 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — With regard to federal funding for flood mitigation in Manitoba: (a) what flood mitigation and flood prevention programs has the government funded since 1996-1997, broken down by year; and (b) what is the government’s position concerning its role in responding to a future flood, including all aspects of coordination and cost-sharing with the Province of Manitoba?

Q-8702 — February 1, 2011 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to family class immigration applications, what were the processing times for complete application packages for each different type of application, by country, for each calendar year or, if not available, each fiscal year between 2005 and 2010?

Q-8712 — February 1, 2011 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to programs begun after 2005 to “support Canada's softwood industry, including fighting the spread of the pine beetle in western Canadian forests and helping communities struggling from U.S. softwood duties”, as stated on page 19 of the 2006 Conservative Party of Canada's Federal Election Platform, for each program: (a) what is its name; (b) what funds were allocated to it; (c) what funds for the program were announced in government press releases; and (d) what funds will it have spent between 2005 and 2011?

Q-8732 — February 1, 2011 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's Economic Action Plan funding for affordable housing, for every project funded, what was: (a) the number of projects with a construction deadline; (b) the number of projects that were rescoped to meet the deadline; and (c) the number of projects that are not expected to be completed before the deadline?

Q-8742 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Bagnell (Yukon) — With regard to the government's current negotiation of Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements and Self-Government Agreements with Canada’s First Nations: (a) for each negotiation, (i) with which First Nation is the government negotiating, (ii) what is the status of the negotiation, (iii) how does the First Nation claim compare with the government's position, including both parties' positions on land mass, boundary outlines and monetary requests, (iv) to date, how much time has been spent on the claim negotiation, (v) to date, what is the total cost of the negotiations of the claim, (vi) when are negotiations expected to be concluded; (b) how many of these claims are Canada's negotiators currently negotiating, and which ones are temporarily on hold and for what reasons; (c) in failed negotiations, will court settlements be necessary to resolve the claim and, if so, which claims are expected to end up in court or are already before the courts; (d) what has the government budgeted for comprehensive land claim negotiations; and (e) what has the government budgeted for comprehensive land claim settlement payments to First Nation communities with which they are now negotiating?

Q-8752 — February 2, 2011 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in Quebec: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8762 — February 2, 2011 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8772 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in Ontario: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8782 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in Nova Scotia: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8792 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — With regard to ecoENERGY projects in the Northwest Territories: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8802 — February 2, 2011 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in Manitoba: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8812 — February 2, 2011 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in New Brunswick: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8822 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Kania (Brampton West) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Ontario: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8832 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Kania (Brampton West) — With regard to ecoENERGY projects in Nunavut: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8842 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Kania (Brampton West) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Manitoba: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8852 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Kania (Brampton West) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Saskatchewan: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8862 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Trudeau (Papineau) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in Prince Edward Island: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8872 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Trudeau (Papineau) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in New Brunswick: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8882 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Trudeau (Papineau) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Alberta: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8892 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Trudeau (Papineau) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in British Columbia: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8902 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in Prince Edward Island: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8912 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in Alberta: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8922 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in Ontario: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8932 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in Ontario: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8942 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Tonks (York South—Weston) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in Alberta: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8952 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Tonks (York South—Weston) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in Saskatchewan: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8962 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Tonks (York South—Weston) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Nunavut: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8972 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Tonks (York South—Weston) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in British Columbia: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8982 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in New Brunswick: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-8992 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in Manitoba: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9002 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in the Northwest Territories: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9012 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Nova Scotia: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9022 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in Nova Scotia: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9032 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in the Yukon: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9042 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9052 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in Northwest Territories: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9062 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in the Nunavut: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9072 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in British Columbia: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9082 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in Saskatchewan: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9092 — February 2, 2011 — Mrs. Zarac (LaSalle—Émard) — With regard to the jobs created by the government's Economic Action Plan: (a) for each North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) designation used by Statistics Canada's Labour Force Survey, (i) how many full-time jobs were created, (ii) how many part-time jobs were created; and (b) by NAICS category, how many (i) full-time jobs were filled by women, (ii) part-time jobs were filled by women?

Q-9102 — February 2, 2011 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9112 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Prince Edward Island: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9122 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River) — With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in the Yukon: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9132 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in the Yukon: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9142 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With regard to responses to questions on the Order Paper, prepared by the ministries but sent to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or the Privy Coucil Office (PCO) for review in 2009 and 2010: (a) what responses to questions on the Order Paper were reviewed by PMO or PCO staff; (b) what responses were amended or sent back to the ministries with suggestions for amendment; and (c) what responses to questions on the Order Paper were completely rejected by PCO or PMO with instructions to the ministry or ministries to rewrite or submit a non-response to the House?

Q-9152 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With regard to the tri-lateral meetings last year at the Wakefield Mill with Hillary Clinton: (a) how many days was the Wakefield Mill rented out; and (b) what are the total costs associated with hosting the event, including facility rental, security, hospitality, transportation, gifts, decorations, sound and video, media monitoring, overtime for government employees and gratuities?

Q-9162 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With regard to the G7 Finance Ministers' meetings in Nunavut: (a) how many Canada Goose parkas were purchased for the event; (b) who were the recipients of each jacket paid for by the government; and (c) what was the total cost of these jackets?

Q-9172 — February 2, 2011 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — With regard to Building Canada Fund projects in Quebec: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9182 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Quebec: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Q-9192 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South) — With regard to programs and grants provided by Citizenship and Immigration Canada for the settlement of new immigrants: (a) what are the names of the organizations to which the government has provided funding in the years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012; (b) what were the program guidelines in each of the years identified in (a); (c) how much funding did each organization receive in each of the years identified in (a); (d) where are the agencies that received funding located; (e) how much of the budgeted funds was not spent and, in the case of 2011-2012, what is the amount that has not been committed; (f) what was done with the unspent funds; (g) how many people did each of these agencies serve in each of the years identified in (a); and (h) what were the performance targets in each of the years identified in (a), identifying the agencies that met and failed to meet those targets?

Q-9202 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South) — With regard to the Employee Innovation Program: (a) how many submissions have been received since the launch of the program; (b) what recommendations were made; (c) in which departments were the submissions made; (d) what is the status of these submissions; (e) how many of these submissions have been acted on by the government and, in each case, how has it been acted on; (f) how much money has the government saved because of this program; (g) have any of the adopted initiatives put forward through the program cost the government more money than the costs that would have been incurred had the changes suggested by the initiative not been adopted and, if so, what were those initiatives and their costs; (h) how many different employees have made submissions; (i) how many employees currently work on this program and what are their titles, roles and responsibilities; (j) what is the cost of this program for each of the budget years for which it has been announced; (k) how much did the program cost to set up; (l) does the government plan to extend the program; (m) who will review the program; and (n) what is the evaluation process for the program?

Q-9212 — February 2, 2011 — Mr. Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South) — With regard to the Public Appointments Commission: (a) what has been its annual budget for each year from 2006-2007 onwards; (b) how much of this money has actually been spent; (c) what has happened to the remaining funds; (d) how many employees work directly for the Commission; (e) how many employees work on the file in the Privy Council Office; (f) what is the breakdown in expenses for each of the years since its creation, including, but not limited to, staff, office space, travel, contracts, hospitality, etc.; (g) how many Commissioners does the Commission currently have; (h) who are these Commissioners; (i) how much are the Commissioners paid; (j) what is the breakdown for the Commissioner’s office budgets, travel expenses (transportation, hotels, per diems) and hospitality expenses for each year since the Commission’s creation; (k) what is the mandate of the Commission; (l) who does the Commission report to; (m) when was the last review of the Commission; (n) what are the roles, responsibilities and titles for each of the Commission’s employees; (o) what are the names of companies that the Commission has entered into contracts with since 2006; (p) what were these contracts for; (q) how much are these contracts for; (r) were any of these contracts tendered and, if not, were they sole-sourced; (s) how much has the Commission spent for telecommunications devices since 2006; (t) how much has the Commission spent for long distance calls since 2006; (u) what are the deliverables for the Commission; and (v) is there an evaluation process for the commission and, if so, what are the results of that process for each year since the Commission has been in operation?

Q-9222 — February 3, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to Canadian Forces (CF) members, reservists, and veterans and Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease (PD), and acquired brain injury (ABI): (a) what, if any, research examines a possible relationship between military service and (i) ADRD, (ii) MS, (iii) PD, (iv) ABI and, if so, (v) what is the summary of research findings related to each of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and any of their recommendations and, if not, (vi) why not; (b) what, if any, research examines a possible relationship between operational stress injuries (OSIs), particularly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and ADRD and, if so, what are the findings; c) what, if any, research examines a possible relationship between OSIs, particularly PTSD, and initiation of MS or exacerbation of MS and, if so, what are the findings; (d) what, if any, research examines a possible relationship between military environmental exposures and (i) ADRD, (ii) PD; (e) what, if any, research examines a possible relationship between ABI and PTSD and between ABI and ADRD; (f) what are the Department of National Defence’s (DND) policies with respect to a CF member's or reservist's diagnosis for each of the four identified conditions, specifically what a diagnosis means in terms of (i) current employment, (ii) opportunity for advancement, (iii) honourable discharge, (iv) presumptive illness, (v) pension, (vi) benefits; (g) what happens when someone in the CF or the reserves is diagnosed with each of the four conditions; (h) what are Veterans Affairs Canada’s (VAC) policies with respect to a veteran's diagnosis for each of the four identified conditions, specifically what a diagnosis means in terms of (i) any employment, (ii) opportunity for advancement, (iii) presumptive illness, (iv) pension, (v) benefits; (i) what are the benefits for which a CF member and reservist with (i) ADRD, (ii) MS, (iii) PD, (iv) ABI is eligible; (j) how are benefits in (i) calculated and for what services and therapies, including but not limited to, aids and maintenance of the aids, disease modifying therapies, medical equipment, medical exams, occupational therapy, physical therapy, etc., are members and reservists eligible; (k) how do benefits for ADRD, MS, and PD differ from those available to members of the CF and reservists who suffer from a physical injury or an OSI; (l) what are the benefits for which a veteran with (i) ADRD, (ii) MS, (iii) PD, (iv) ABI is eligible; (m) how are benefits in (l) calculated and for what services and therapies, including but not limited to, aids and maintenance of aids, disease modifying therapies, medical equipment, medical exams, occupational therapy, physical therapy, etc., are veterans eligible; (n) what, if any, studies of international efforts have been undertaken by DND and VAC regarding military service and each of ADRD, MS, PD, and ABI and, (i) if so, specify what studies, the chief findings, and any recommendations and, (ii) if not, why not; (o) how many members currently serving in the CF and reserves have received a diagnosis of ADRD, MS, PD, or ABI and how many veterans suffer from each of the identified conditions; (p) of the cases identified in (o), (i) how many have been awarded a service-related disability, (ii) what specific criteria were required to award a service-related disability, (iii) how was “benefit of the doubt” ensured and what was the framework followed to ensure reliability and validity, (iv) how many were denied a service-related disability, (v) how many people are appealing a decision; (q) how many CF members and reservists with (i) ADRD, (ii) MS, (iii) PD, (iv) ABI were required to leave the military during the last 5 years, 10 years and 20 years; (r) of those CF members and reservists in (q), what was the average time from diagnosis to honourable discharge, what opportunities might have existed for members and reservists to keep working but in an altered capacity, were opportunities explored, why or why not, and what was the average impact on pension and benefits; (s) what, if any, tracking was undertaken of the member's or reservist's (i) disease progression, (ii) work status, (iii) family life, (iv) mental health, etc., (v) what recommendations, if any, have been made or could be made to improve the quality of life of former military personnel; (t) how are each of ADRD, MS, PD, and ABI tracked among (i) CF members, (ii) reservists, (iii) veterans; and (u) what long-term care is available, if necessary, for modern-day veterans suffering from each of the four identified conditions?

Q-9232 — February 3, 2011 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) how many persons were employed by VAC in Prince Edward Island for each of the fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, broken down by (i) full-time employees, (ii) part-time employees, (iii) term contract employees, (iv) student contract employees; and (b) what was the total remuneration for VAC employees in Prince Edward Island for the same periods in (a)?

Q-9242 — February 3, 2011 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from Afghanistan: (a) what were the Department of National Defense's initial cost estimates, prior to November 2010, for the removal of equipment and personnel from Afghanistan in spring-summer of 2011; (b) what additional costs are anticipated now that Canada has lost access to Camp Mirage in the United Arab Emirates; and (c) what funds have been reallocated within the department in order to cover these cost overruns?

Q-9252 — February 3, 2011 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to the procurement of the Joint Strike Fighter: (a) since 2006, how many and which private sector consultants has the government hired in order to assess the feasibility and technical capabilities of the F-35; (b) how much were each of these consultants paid for their work; and (c) for how many billable hours did each consultant invoice the government?

Q-9262 — February 3, 2011 — Mr. Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — With regard to possible tax evasion in Switzerland: (a) how many Canadians have been identified as having undeclared bank accounts in Switzerland; (b) what action, if any, has been taken by Canadian officials to recover unpaid taxes associated with Canadians' undeclared bank accounts in Switzerland; (c) how many identified Canadians have availed themselves of the Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP) with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (d) how many identified Canadian accounts have settled with the CRA; (e) how much money has the CRA assessed as a result of investigating these secret banks accounts in Switzerland (i) in unpaid taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (f) how much of the money in (e) has been collected; (g) how many of the cases are under appeal; (h) how many cases remain open; (i) how many more cases does the CRA anticipate will be opened; (j) how many cases have been closed (i.e., the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties have been collected); (k) how much money in (j) has been collected (i) in unpaid taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (l) how many account holders in the cases have made partial payment; (m) of the partial payments made, what was the (i) largest amount, (ii) smallest amount, (iii) average amount; (n) how much does the CRA anticipate it has yet to collect in (i) taxes, (ii) interest, (iii) fines, (iv) penalties; (o) of the amounts of money contained in the Switzerland accounts declared or discovered by CRA, what was the (i) largest amount, (ii) smallest amount, (iii) average amount; (p) on what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts in Switzerland; (q) on what date did the CRA begin its investigation; (r) on what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin; (s) how many of the identified Canadians with bank accounts in Switzerland (i) have had their account or accounts audited, (ii) have had their account or accounts reassessed, (iii) have been the subject of a compliance action; (t) how many of the identified Canadians with bank accounts in Switzerland (i) have not had their account or accounts audited, (ii) have not had their account or accounts reassessed, (iii) have not been the subject of a compliance action; (u) how many tax evasion charges were laid; and (v) has the government made any changes to the VDP in the past 24 months?

Q-9272 — February 3, 2011 — Mr. Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South) — With regard to funds spent by Elections Canada: (a) how much has Elections Canada spent on legal counsel and legal advice since 2005; (b) how much of this spending was to address issues with regard to the Conservative Party of Canada; and (c) how many legal proceedings does Elections Canada have ongoing at this time?

Q-9282 — February 3, 2011 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With respect to FedNor: (a) how many new programs will be introduced for the Northern Ontario region in the fiscal year 2011-2012; (b) how many programs will sunset on March 31, 2011; and (c) how many major projects will be launched in 2011-2012 in cooperation with each municipality and local community?

Q-9292 — February 3, 2011 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With respect to federal regional economic development agencies: (a) what new programs and initiatives does each agency plan to introduce after Canada's Economic Action Plan (EAP) initiatives sunset on March 31, 2011; (b) what are the expected cuts for each federal agency once the EAP's initiatives sunset; and (c) how many jobs are created by each agency as a result of implementation of EAP initiatives.

Q-9302 — February 3, 2011 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to the operation of 5 Wing Goose Bay: (a) what steps have been taken since January 2006 towards the establishment at the base of (i) a rapid reaction battalion, (ii) an unmanned aerial vehicle squadron; (b) as of January 1, 2009, January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2011, how many Department of National Defence civilian employees and members of the Canadian Forces were employed or stationed at (i) 444 Squadron, (ii) 5 Wing Goose Bay, but not otherwise included in the total for 444 Squadron; (c) what steps has the government taken to market 5 Wing Goose Bay for (i) foreign military flight training, (ii) any other purpose; (d) what efforts have taken place on environmental remediation at Goose Bay and what efforts are planned; (e) what are the details of any local benefits policy contained in any contract for environmental remediation projects at Goose Bay; and (f) what activity has the Department of National Defence undertaken since January 1, 2006, concerning any possible closure of the Combat Support Squadron at Goose Bay?

Q-9312 — February 3, 2011 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to government television advertising during January and February 2011, for each of the following advertising campaigns, namely advertising for Canada’s Economic Action Plan, advertising by the Canada Revenue Agency and advertising by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation: (a) what are the total costs associated with each campaign, including (i) production costs, (ii) advertising air-time purchases, (iii) other costs, specifying what those costs are; (b) what are the total insertions of each advertisement which constitutes each advertising campaign; (c) on what dates, times, and on which television channel or station has each advertisement aired or will each advertisement air; (d) which office or official is responsible for each advertising campaign; (e) which advertising agency or firm was contracted in respect of each advertising campaign; (f) which creative or production agency was contracted to produce each advertisement which forms part of each advertising campaign; (g) when was each advertisement filmed; (h) what were the specific instructions, directions or other communications from each department or corporation to the production or advertising team in respect of the content, tone, format, script, visual elements or all other creative elements of each ad; (i) what are the file numbers associated with each of these advertising campaigns; and (j) what are the contract numbers associated with each of these advertising campaigns?

Q-9322 — February 3, 2011 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the backdrops used by the government for the announcements from December 10, 2010, to February 1, 2011, inclusive, and for October 15, 2008, to March 31, 2009, inclusive, for each backdrop purchased, what were: (a) the dates (i) the tender was issued for the backdrop, (ii) the contract was signed, (iii) the backdrop was delivered; (b) the cost of the backdrop; (c) the announcement for which the backdrop was used; (d) the department that paid for the backdrop; and (e) the date or dates the backdrop was used?

Q-9332 — February 4, 2011 — Mr. Dosanjh (Vancouver South) — With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS): (a) has the government achieved its goal to reduce overall smoking prevalence from 19 percent in 2005 to 12 percent by 2011 and, if not, what are the reasons the government has failed to meet this target; (b) has the government established new goals and objectives for this strategy for the period following 2011 and, if so, what are they and, if not, why not; (c) does the government intend to revise or renew the FTCS and, if so, what steps has it taken to consult with the public and key stakeholders in this regard; and (d) does the government intend to continue to provide transfer payments in support of this strategy in 2011-2012 and, if so, (i) what is the total anticipated amount to be transferred in that fiscal year, (ii) has spending authority for these payments been obtained, (iii) has a process been put in place to solicit proposals for activities funded through transfer payments?

Q-9342 — February 4, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regard to Pre-Removal Risk Assessments (PRRAs) filed by individuals subject to removal from Canada for each year from 2005: (a) how many PRRAs were submitted; (b) how many were approved; (c) how many were denied; (d) of those denied, how many were on the grounds of (i) posing a danger to the public of Canada, (ii) posing a danger to the security of Canada, (iii) administrative reasons, (iv) other reasons; (e) what were the countries of return of the persons applying for PRRAs, both approved and denied; (f) how many PRRA applicants (i) were subject to an extradition order, (ii) were advancing a refugee claim, (iii) had a PRRA rejected and did not leave Canada; and (g) who are the individuals at Citizenship and Immigration Canada responsible for deciding the outcomes of PRRAs?

Q-9352 — February 4, 2011 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund: (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated to the fund during fiscal year 2009-2010; (b) which departments contributed to the fund and how much money was contributed by each department; (c) what projects were supported by the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund and what is the total cost of each project; (d) which companies were awarded contracts and was a procurement process in place; (e) which facilities used by the G8 leaders were sponsored by the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund; and (f) which municipalities were awarded contracts or received funding from the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund and how much did they receive?

Q-9362 — February 4, 2011 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs programs: (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated for the program on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; (b) what was the total number of student summer jobs created on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; (c) what was the total number of contracts awarded on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding; (d) what was the average wage paid per year from 2006 to date (i) across Canada, (ii) by province and territory; (e) what was the average length of the contracts from 2006 to date (i) across Canada, (ii) by province and territory; and (f) what was the total number of hours of work per year from 2006 to 2011 (i) overall in Canada, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by riding?

Q-9372 — February 4, 2011 — Ms. Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale) — With regard to programs and services of the Foreign Credentials Referral Office in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration since 2008: (a) what is the budget of each program or service including (i) each expenditure, including contracts under $10,000, (ii) the value of the expenditure, (iii) the goods or services consumed, (iv) the department under which the expenditure is accounted for, (v) whether or not the contract was tendered through an open bidding process if the goods or services were purchased from an outside source, (vi) the name of the outside source, (vii) the contract's reference number, (viii) dates of contracts, (ix) descriptions of the services provided, (x) delivery dates, (xi) original contracts' values, (xii) final contracts' values if different from the original contract's value, (xiii) how much remains unspent for each program and service; (b) what is the breakdown of costs for each meeting, townhall, roundtable and conference related to programs or services provided by the Foreign Credentials Referral Office including, but not limited to, (i) travel, (ii) accommodations, (iii) food, (iv) refreshments, (v) drafting of reports, (vi) drafting of speeches, (vii) drafting of press releases, (viii) drafting of talking points, (ix) drafting of media communications; and (c) what is the total amount spent by the Foreign Credentials Referral Office on advertising since 2008 and identify, in alphabetical order by supplier, (i) how much was spent per print advertisement, (ii) how much was spent per radio advertisement, (iii) how much was spent per Internet advertisement, (iv) how much was spent per television advertisement?

Q-9382 — February 4, 2011 — Ms. Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale) — With regard to the Foreign Credentials Referral Office in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, since January 2008: (a) what are the monthly statistics, by labour market code, of individuals seeking information from any program or service provided by phone, in person or overseas; (b) for each labour market code, what is the breakdown of the programs, services, processes, support or agreements currently in place to assist individuals from those occupations and, if programs or services are not currently available for those labour market codes, the date the department intends to institute programs or services for those occupations; (c) for each labour market code, what is the status of negotiations with provinces, countries and professional organizations for resolving issues relating to foreign credentials; and (d) for each labour market code, what are the monthly statistics of the number of foreign credential problems of individuals successfully resolved by the programs and services of the Foreign Credentials Referral Office?

Q-9392 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

Q-9402 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the city of Hamilton, Ontario, for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (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-9412 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — What is the total amount of government funding since April 2009 up to and including the current fiscal year allocated within the city of Hamilton, Ontario, by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

Q-9422 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — 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 Nickel Belt, specifying each (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

Q-9432 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Nickel Belt for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

Q-9442 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — What is the total amount of government funding, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 1988-1989 up to fiscal year 2008-2009, allocated within the constituency of Sudbury, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-9452 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to the federal support of Canadian athletes: (a) how much money did the government provide to each sport federation or association since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) how much money is committed to each national sport federation or association for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; and (c) how much money was spent by the government on (i) athlete's education, (ii) coaching, (iii) training, (iv) scholarships, (v) injury prevention, (vi) travel, (vii) accommodation?

Q-9462 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With respect to the Children's Fitness Tax Credit program: (a) how many families received payments under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; and (c) how many applications for the program were declined on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total?

Q-9472 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With respect to programs for young families: (a) how many new programs were introduced and how much money was spent by the government since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date (i) across Canada, (ii) by province; (b) which departments were responsible for program administration; (c) how much money was allocated to programs addressing the needs of young families (i) by department, (ii) by province; (d) how many programs for young families were finished and were not renewed since 2006 to date; and (e) how much money was spent for initiatives to support young families under the Canada Economic Action Plan each fiscal year since 2007-2008 to date (i) in total amount by year, (ii) by province?

Q-9482 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to bonuses granted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: (a) how many bonuses were dispersed, broken down by (i) fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (ii) individual personnel, (iii) region, (iv) departmental division; and (b) what was the amount of the bonuses broken down by (i) fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (ii) individual personnel, (iii) region, (iv) departmental division?

Q-9492 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — 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 Timmins—James Bay, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-9502 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Timmins—James Bay for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

Q-9512 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), the liberation treatment, and multiple sclerosis (MS): (a) what consensus documents have been published regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, (i) by whom, (ii) on what dates, (iii) what were the recommendations, (iv) were they reviewed by the August 26, 2010, meeting of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in collaboration with the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC); (b) why were Canadian members of the International Union of Phlebology (IUP), who were part of the Consensus process regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, not consulted during the August 26 meeting of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); (c) what are the details of any plan the government has or is developing to collect evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, for example, through clinical trials or the creation of a registry; (d) what percentage of surgical procedures in Canada have been double-blind tested over the last 40 years and, for this percentage, (i) what is the risk of complication, (ii) what is considered an acceptable risk of complication, (iii) how do physicians judge acceptable risk and convey this risk to their patients, (iv) what actions do physicians take to reduce risk if the patient chooses to undertake the procedure; (e) when a medical treatment appears to be potentially effective, is its approval ever fast-tracked by the relevant Canadian authorities and, if so, (i) what are any examples of this in Canada over the last five years, (ii) has this ever happened with respect to MS, (iii) if so, who advocated for a fast-tracking and when, (iv) what process was followed to allow the treatment, (v) who made the decision to proceed, (vi) why was fast-tracking deemed necessary, (vii) what were the known risks at the time of the request, (viii) what, if any, negative impacts resulted; (f) what are the reasons for the length of time it has taken the relevant Canadian authorities to implement clinical trials or to develop a registry; (g) why did no member of the August 26 group declare any conflicts of interest, either real or perceived; (h) how many liberation procedures did the August 26 group estimate have been undertaken, (i) which countries were undertaking the procedure, (ii) to which countries were Canadians travelling, (iii) were the practitioners considered to be sufficiently trained, (iv) were the procedures in these countries found to be safe; (i) which people, labs and operating theatres had undertaken the diagnosis or treatment of CCSVI in Canada prior to the August 26 meeting; (j) why did the August 26 meeting not include Canadian experts in the imaging or treatment of CCSVI and for what reasons was Dr. Sandy McDonald not included as a participant; (k) why did the August 26 meeting not include international experts in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, data presented at international scientific conferences or site visits to labs and operating theatres, which were or had been undertaking diagnosis or treatment; (l) what is a comprehensive explanation of why the inclusion of CCSVI and liberation experts might have biased the sample of the August 26 group and whether such selection is an established practice at all CIHR meetings; (m) what are all the names of the group members who had spoken out against diagnosis or treatment of CCSVI or the liberation procedure prior to the August 26 meeting, what were the details of their positions, and what are their publically-available comments on the matter; (n) who were all the members of the August 26 group and, for each member, what were his or her stated or declared conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest; (o) what was the August 26 group’s assessment of and comments concerning all reviewed published papers, including both positive and negative observations; (p) did the August 26 group find it unusual that two of the reviewed papers had been accepted for publication in only six weeks, (i) did the group review whether this is a common practice in medicine, (ii) did the group consider how and why this might happen, (iii) did the group explore the expertise of those writing the papers, their experience, how their results compared with those of Dr.Zamboni and, if so, (iv) what were the group's findings for questions posed in (iii); (q) which neurologists, present at the August 26 meeting, had followed MS patients who were diagnosed with CCSVI and who had been treated for the condition, (i) how had neurologists followed them (e.g., appointment, EDSS score/another scale, MRI, neurological exam, etc.), (ii) what, if any, evidence did they present of patients' progress following the liberation procedure; (r) did the August 26 group find the reversal in the MSSC's position, who was part of the greater group, unusual, (i) did the group investigate or consider the reasons for this change in position and, if so, (ii) what observations did it make or conclusions did it come to regarding the reversal; (s) did the August 26 group estimate how its decision might impact Canadian MS patients, including (i) impacts on their mental health and how this might impact their disease, (ii) the number of Canadian MS patients who might feel forced to seek help outside Canada, (iii) how air travel, a compromised vascular system, recent surgery, and lack of follow-up in Canada might impact their disease and, if so, (iv) what are the results of those estimations; (t) what consensus documents are forthcoming, (i) by whom, (ii) when will they be published; (u) what is the work plan for the new expert working group which met for the first time on November 23, 2010, (i) who are the panellists, what are their qualifications and what is their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, (ii) how were the panellists chosen and by whom, (iii) what is the group’s mandate and how was it derived, (iv) what is the schedule of meetings, (v) what is the timeline for the group’s work, (vi) what evidence will be reviewed to reach any decision about possible clinical trials, registry, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up care, etc.; (v) what was the agenda for the November 23 meeting of the expert working group, (i) what abstracts, documents, and presentations were reviewed, (ii) which Canadian and international experts, with experience in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, were consulted, (iii) what Canadian and international unpublished data were explored, (iv) what Canadian and international labs or operating theatres were reviewed and visited; (w) for what reasons is the new group going to analyze interim and final results from seven studies funded by the Canadian and US MS Societies and why are these studies considered more worthwhile cases for analysis than other studies already completed; (x) when will the November 23 expert panel declare and post any conflicts of interest, following the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) guide, on the CIHR website to eliminate the possibility of real or perceived conflicts; (y) further to assurances made by the President of CIHR, Dr. Alain Beaudet, to the Subcommittee on Neurological Diseases on December 7, 2010, that MS patients who have had the liberation procedure would have follow-up, what are the details of how that follow-up will occur, specifically, (i) how will “a message be sent”, by whom, to whom, by when and what will the message be, (ii) specifically, will all patients who travel or travelled outside Canada be assured that their doctors will see them, that appointments will not be cancelled, that tests will not be cancelled, that they will have access to recommended prescriptions, that they will not lose their long-term care and that they will not be berated for making the decision to have liberation, (iii) how will this be enforced, (iv) what action should MS patients take if they are denied care, (v) to whom should they report a denial of care, (vi) what are the consequences for a physician or health practitioner or organization who delivers care but fails to provide follow-up care, (vii) will follow-up include ultrasound or MRI to image the veins of MS patients and, if so, how often will these imaging procedures occur and who will pay for them?

Q-9522 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With respect to the Universal Child Care Benefit program: (a) how many families received payments under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how many single parents applied and received payments under this program (i) by province, (ii) in total; (c) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; and (d) how many applications for the program were declined on annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total?

Q-9532 — February 7, 2011 — Mrs. Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) — With respect to the appointment of the Vice-Chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): (a) what criteria did Mr. Athanasios Pentefountas meet in order to qualify for this position; and (b) what criteria were used to select the best candidate for the position?

Q-9542 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Allen (Welland) — With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): (a) how many full-time equivalents (FTEs) are expended by the CFIA on work related to food safety, as opposed to plant and animal health, on an annual basis in (i) the United States, (ii) Mexico, (iii) China, (iv) France, (v) Italy, (vi) Brazil, (vii) Chile, (viii) Thailand, (ix) Australia, (x) the United Kingdom; and (b) during 2011, will CFIA conduct any foreign country equivalency audits on the scale of the audits of Canada’s food safety system done by the United States Food Safety and Inspection Service, involving detailed and extensive review of policies, procedures and site visits to food production facilities and, if it will, which countries will it audit?

Q-9552 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With respect to the First-Time Home Buyers' Tax Credit program: (a) how many first-time home buyers received benefits under this program from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (b) how much money was paid to program recipients on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) in total, (ii) by province; (c) how many applications were received and how many were declined on an annual basis from 2006 to date (i) by province, (ii) in total?

Q-9562 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regard to the British Columbia Treaty Process: (a) what substantive actions has the government taken to study the issue of accumulation of interest from treaty loans; (b) how does the debt from this interest affect the treaty negotiations; (c) when will the government outline its new approach to funding for First Nations self-government as announced in the March 2010 budget; (d) how has the federal mandate on negotiation changed since 2006; (e) how many treaty loans will come due in 2011; (f) what is the total value of those treaty loans coming due in 2011; (g) what is the total value of interest on those loans; (h) what steps has the government taken to extend the deadline on treaty loans; (i) when will the government report to the House of Commons on the treaty loan deadline; and (j) what is the government's communications plan as concerns the treaty loan deadline and First Nations, including those First Nations involved in treaty negotiations, those that have dropped out of the process and those First Nations that are not involved in treaty negotiations?

Q-9572 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With reference to the study by Doctor Masazumi Harada entitled "Long-term study on the effects of mercury contamination on two indigenous communities in Canada (1975-2004)": (a) does Health Canada’s blood guidance value account for long-term low-level exposure to mercury; (b) what steps has Health Canada taken to study births in Grassy Narrows where the children exhibited symptoms of congenital Minamata disease; (c) what actions has Health Canada taken to inform Grassy Narrows residents about the potential for congenital Minamata disease; (d) since Health Canada stopped monitoring mercury in Grassy Narrows in the 1990s, has there been any follow-up study to ensure mercury levels have not changed; (e) how many people have applied to the Mercury Compensation Board since its beginning; (f) how many of those people were denied compensation; (g) for what reasons was compensation denied; (h) how many people appealed the denial of compensation and, of those people who appealed, how many were successful; (i) what investigation has been done into the long-term health of workers at chloralkali plants in Canada; (j) have chloralkali plant workers received any compensation for adverse health effects from mercury; (k) are there any plans to add the residents of Wabauskang (formerly Quibell) on the Wabigoon River to the list of possible beneficiaries of the Mercury Compensation Board; (l) what has been done to identify and remediate all mercury hot spots across Canada; and (m) how is the government upholding the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in relation to persistent mercury pollution hotspots including, but not limited to, Thunder Bay, Sarnia and Cornwall?

Q-9582 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso) — With respect to Agent Orange and Canadian veterans trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange spraying at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown: (a) what is the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to January 31, 2011, on the defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; (b) what is the total amount of money identified in (a) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011; (c) what is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to January 31, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; (d) what is the total amount of money identified in (c) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011; (e) what is the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to January 31, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit; and (f) what is the total amount of money identified in (e) spent between March 5, 2010, and January 31, 2011?

Q-9592 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — With regard to federal funding under the Canada Economic Action Plan in the riding of Winnipeg Centre for fiscal year 2008-2009 to date: (a) how many and what projects received funding from a department or an agency over this period; and (b) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or an agency over this period?

Q-9602 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — 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 Winnipeg Centre, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-9612 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to programs aimed at increasing youth participation in the election process and democratic governance in Canada: (a) what initiatives were undertaken by all departments from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (b) what Canadian not-for-profit organizations received funding and were engaged in this process; (c) what was the total funding allocation for these initiatives from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; and (d) are any new programs planned to be launched in fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013?

Q-9622 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) — With regard to Environment Canada and enforcement: (a) how many full-time enforcement officers are currently employed by the government, broken down by number of (i) inspectors enforcing environmental protection or pollution laws, (ii) investigators enforcing environmental protection or pollution laws, (iii) conservation officers enforcing wildlife laws, (iv) enforcement officers in parks laws; (b) where are each of the officers in (a) based and deployed; (c) what are the budgets and actual expenditures for enforcement for the past five years; (d) what is the breakdown for full-time equivalents in enforcement for headquarters and for the regions for compliance promotion, inspection and investigation, and enforcement, respectively; (e) what increase in full-time equivalents and budget expenditures are anticipated in order to implement the promised improved monitoring regime for the oil sands sector; (f) what is the timeline for the deployment of any increased monitoring and enforcement activity for the oil sands sector; and (g) has the department instituted a specific enforcement and compliance strategy for the oil sands sector?

Q-9632 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona, specifying each department or agency, initiative or program, year and amount?

Q-9642 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With respect to the Medical Establishment licensing fee: (a) what is the rationale for the fee increase of 340 percent from $2100 to $7200 effective April 1, 2011; (b) if the rationale is improvements to the program, what will those improvements be; (c) are all dealers selling medical equipment in Canada licensed; and (d) are dealers selling medical equipment in the canadian market via mail orders licensed?

Q-9652 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (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 Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (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 Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (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 Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (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 Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (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 Skeena—Bulkley Valley, (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-9662 — February 7, 2011 — Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — With regard to government support of Canadian small and medium-sized businesses: (a) how much money was spent on federal programs to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Canadian businesses on an annual basis since fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; and (b) what new programs and initiatives will be introduced by the government in fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013?

Q-9672 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to corporate taxation: (a) how many corporations in Canada paid no tax in each of the last ten years; and (b) what were their combined revenues and profits, in each of the last ten years?

Q-9682 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — What is the total amount of deferred corporate taxes for the tax years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009?

Q-9692 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With respect to federal funding for Child Advocacy Centres announced in October 2010: (a) does the funding for this initiative come from an existing fund, or is it a new initiative with new funding; (b) what are the criteria by which applications for funding under this initiative will be evaluated; (c) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been received, broken down by month received, location of project and name of applicant; (d) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been approved, broken down by date approved, location of project and name of applicant; (e) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been rejected, broken down by date rejected, location of project and name of applicant; (f) is there a prescribed limit to the amount of funds that can be disbursed under this initiative within a single fiscal year; (g) is there a prescribed limit to the amount of funds that can be disbursed to a single applicant or project; (h) what happens to this initiative once the $5.25 million has been fully assigned; (i) what will happen to the funding once the five year commitment comes to an end; (j) what factors or circumstances changed between the time of the requests made by former Victims Ombudsman, Steve Sullivan, to include funding for Child Advocacy Centres in Budget 2009 and Budget 2010 and the time the government decided to announce funding in October 2010; (k) what existing programs or initiatives may have their funding or potential funding reduced or eliminated as a result of the announced funding for Child Advocacy Centres; (l) what specific branch, department or agency is responsible for administering the funding for Child Advocacy Centres; and (m) what is the legislative basis for this funding?

Q-9702 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regard to the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in New Brunswick by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL): (a) what is the most recent estimate of the total cost of the completed refurbishment; (b) what is the expected completion date; (c) what is the total funding transferred to AECL by the government to pay for cost overruns in each fiscal year; (d) what is the expected total amount that will be transferred to AECL by the completion date; (e) what amount has the government of New Brunswick requested from the government as compensation for replacement power costs; and (f) what commitments has the government made to the government of New Brunswick with regards to compensation for replacement power costs?

Q-9712 — February 7, 2011 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regard to all federal funding in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or an agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or an agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects which received funding from a department or an agency over this period?

Q-9722 — February 8, 2011 — Mr. Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) — With regard to 439 Combat Support Squadron, based in Bagotville, Quebec: (a) does the government intend to close this squadron’s facilities, currently located in Bagotville and, if so, (i) why, (ii) when; (b) does the government intend to disband the Squadron and, if so, (i) why, (ii) when; (c) does the government intend to relocate this squadron and, if so, (i) where to, (ii) when; (d) how many jobs for soldiers and officers, reservists and civilians will be directly affected if this squadron is disbanded or relocated; and (e) for each job category listed in (d), how many positions will be (i) eliminated, (ii) relocated?

Q-9732 — February 9, 2011 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to the Canadian International Development Agency’s (CIDA) decision, dated November 27, 2009, to discontinue funding for the KAIROS organization: (a) did the Minister personally sign the final memorandum regarding KAIROS funding on November 27, 2009; (b) if the Minister signed her name to the final memorandum on November 27, 2009, did the final memorandum, at the time of the Minister’s signing it, contain the handwritten word “not” in the final sentence; (c) did the Minister herself handwrite the word “not” into the final memorandum; (d) if the Minister did not handwrite the word “not” in the final memorandum, who would have had the authority to do so; and (e) did the Minister recommend that CIDA funding to KAIROS should continue?

Q-9742 — February 9, 2011 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to the rising costs of the F-35 stealth fighter jets and the fact that United States officials have publicly questioned the progress and efficacy of the F-35s: (a) in what meetings with the United States has the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) or the Department of National Defence (DND) participated at which there were discussions of the increasing cost of the jets from the initial $9 billion assessment to approximately $21 billion; (b) in what meetings with the United States has DFAIT or DND participated at which there were discussions about the impact that production delays surrounding the F-35s would have on Canada’s timeline to receive the jets and the amount that the jets will cost; and (c) what is the most recent projected cost for Canada’s purchase of the F-35 jets?

Q-9752 — February 9, 2011 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — With regard to the situation in Haiti following the recent earthquake: (a) at what meetings has the government participated where there were discussions concerning the promotion of effective leadership and good governance in Haiti; (b) what measures has the government undertaken to ensure that the money pledged to Haiti is getting delivered on the ground; (c) has the government looked into any other assistance programs besides direct economic aid to help the people of Haiti; and (d) what measures has the government taken to reopen the embassy in Haiti and restore consular services?

Q-9762 — February 9, 2011 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to regional Ministerial responsibilities, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006, inclusively: (a) which Ministers have had regional representation responsibilities and for which provinces, territories or other regions; (b) what were the start and end dates of those responsibilities, if applicable; (c) what were the instructions given to each Minister in respect of his or her regional Ministerial responsibilities; (d) what were the operating expenditures for each Minister in respect of his or her regional representation responsibilities, including how much was spent on wages, salaries, contracts for the provision of services, contracts for the provision of goods, office leases and other expenditures, giving particulars of those expenditures; (e) where were these leased offices located; (f) how many employees are or were employed by each Minister’s regional office; (g) where did each employee have his or her principle place of employment; and (h) what were the travel and hospitality expenses of each Minister or Minister’s employee in respect of their regional Ministerial responsibilities?

Q-9772 — February 9, 2011 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to a verification strategy for Métis identification systems: (a) what are the purposes of the proposed or actual contract or contracts with the Canadian Standards Association to develop a verification strategy for Métis identification systems; (b) what is the monetary value of the contract or contracts; (c) what are the effective dates of the contract or contracts; (d) what is the file number of the contract or contracts; (e) what is the scope of the work to be carried out under any such contract; (f) was any such contract awarded on a sole-source or competitive basis; (g) if any such contract was awarded on a competitive basis, how many bids were received; (h) are there provisions for Métis employment or procurement benefits under this contract; (i) has the government consulted with Métis representative organizations concerning Métis identification generally or as concerns this contract in particular and, if so, (i) with which Métis representative organizations has it consulted, (ii) what was the nature, duration, and extent of such consultation, (iii) what was the outcome of those consultations; (j) what definition or definitions of “Métis” are to be used for this verification strategy; (k) what is the rationale behind the definition or definitions of “Métis” that are to be used; and (l) is the verification strategy consistent with Articles 9 and 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, if not, what is the nature and extent of the inconsistency?

Q-9782 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Dosanjh (Vancouver South) — With regard to Health Canada’s wait times strategy: (a) what are the most recent wait times as reported by each province in each of the five key areas of the government’s wait times strategy (cancer, heart, diagnostic imaging, joint replacement and sight restoration); and (b) what was the amount of money earmarked for wait time reduction disbursed by the government to each province in each year of the government’s wait times strategy?

Q-9792 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With respect to the June 2001 report entitled “Coastal Impacts of Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise on Prince Edward Island”: (a) have there been any updates to the study since the release of the report in June 2001; and (b) has the government conducted any separate studies since June 2001 on the impacts of climate change and rising sea-levels on Prince Edward Island?

Q-9802 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to each of the Air Force's combat support squadrons: (a) does the government intend to close any of these squadrons' facilities and, if so, (i) why, (ii) when; (b) does the government intend to disband any of these squadrons and, if so, (i) why, (ii) when; (c) does the government intend to relocate any of these squadrons and, if so, (i) where to, (ii) when; (d) how many jobs for soldiers and officers, reservists and civilians will be directly affected if any of these squadrons are disbanded or relocated; (e) for each job category listed in (d), how many positions will be (i) eliminated, (ii) relocated; and (f) if the government does not presently intend to close any of these squadrons, has it developed plans for the potential closure of each or any of them, specifying which?

Q-9812 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — 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 Ottawa Centre, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-9822 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — 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 Gatineau, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-9832 — February 10, 2011 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — 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 Hull—Aylmer, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-9862 — February 14, 2011 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — With regard to the government's planned purchase of 65 F-35 aircraft: (a) what are the estimated industrial benefits to Manitoba in terms of dollars and jobs; (b) what methodology was used to determine these estimates; (c) when were these estimates calculated and have they since been reviewed; (d) did the government consult with potential suppliers in Manitoba regarding the decision to not seek mandated levels of domestic content or industrial regional benefits as part of the procurement; (e) if yes, when did these consultations take place, with whom, and what were the conclusions; (f) if not, has the government received any unsolicited requests from suppliers in Manitoba to include guaranteed industrial benefits as part of the F-35 contract; and (g) is it possible that a change in the size of the F-35 procurement by other nations could negatively affect the estimated level of industrial benefits to Manitoba, and what are the government's estimates regarding the likelihood and scope of such a change?

Q-9872 — February 14, 2011 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — With regard to the rate increase for the Pensioners’ Dental Services Plan (PDSP): (a) what organizations did the government consult with before increasing the monthly contribution rates for PDSP members; (b) going back 10 years, what have the annual contribution rates been for PDSP members; (c) going back 10 years, what have dental health professionals been paid by the PDSP, broken down by year and by province; (d) going back 10 years, what has been the average cost of supplies used by dental health professionals and paid for by the PDSP, broken down by year and by province; (e) going back 10 years, what has been the average cost of equipment used by dental health professionals and paid for by the PDSP, broken down by year and by province; (f) going back 10 years, what have been the annual PDSP costs; (g) going back 10 years, what services have been covered by the PDSP, broken down by year; (h) going back 10 years, how many PDSP members have there been, broken down by year, age and gender; (i) going back 10 years, how many pensioners have there been, broken down by year, age and gender; (j) what factors contributed to the increase in monthly contribution rates for PDSP members; (k) what data led to the decision to increase the contribution rate for PDSP members, and what were the results of all comparative studies done on the subject; and (l) what percentage of PDSP members’ annual contributions go to pay for PDSP administration costs (Sun Life Canada)?

Q-9882 — February 15, 2011 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With respect to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the government’s commitment of $2.85 billion over 5 years for the Muskoka Initiative: (a) for each project or program that qualifies for the renewed $1.75 billion in existing funding, (i) what is its name and objective, (ii) what is the total federal funding commitment, (iii) what is the timeframe for the project or program; (b) for each program or project that qualifies for the new $1.1 billion in funding announced on February 1, 2011, (i) what is its name and objective, (ii) what is the total federal funding commitment, (iii) what is the timeframe for the project or program; (c) for each of the bilateral, multilateral and partnership branches, (i) which partner and country is receiving funding, (ii) in what amount is the funding being received; and (d) what plans does the government have to inform Parliament and the public regarding this spending?

Q-9892 — February 15, 2011 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to departmental spending from 2006 to present, what were the total costs of rentals and purchases of individual staging, lighting and audio equipment, and production and assorted technical costs for all government announcements and public events?

Q-9902 — February 15, 2011 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With respect to proficiency in the second official language: (a) what is the language proficiency level of each of the chief executives of federal institutions; and (b) when did each chief executive obtain this level?

Q-9912 — February 15, 2011 — Mr. Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes) — With respect to the transfer of the government's ownership of the retaining walls built along the shores of the Saint Lawrence River at Boucherville, Varennes, Verchères and Contrecoeur: (a) when did this transfer occur; (b) to whom was the ownership of these structures transferred; (c) in which ways was this transfer implemented; and (d) where have these transactions been registered?

Q-9922 — February 17, 2011 — Mr. Wilfert (Richmond Hill) — With regard to the purchase of 65 F-35(A) fighter jets for future use in the Canadian Forces: (a) when and on how many occasions did the Department of National Defence (DND) submit a justification for “the legal authority to use an exception to competitive bidding”, as is required in section 3.15[a] of the Treasury Board Guideline; and (b) for each submission, referenced in the government’s response to part (a) of this question, that utilized the exception to competitive bidding found under section 3.15[a][iv] of the Treasury Board Guidelines, what justification is provided that would allow the government and DND to consider the F-35(A) as the only aircraft capable of meeting all of the department’s high-level mandatory requirements for this procurement project despite the department’s knowledge that the F-35(A) cannot meet the mandatory requirement pertaining to air-to-air refuelling?

Q-9932 — February 24, 2011 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to Transport Canada and, more specifically, fees that have been collected from vessel owners, vessel operators and all marine traffic users as a result of access or entry to any port located geographically in Placentia Bay, for fiscal years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) what fees have been paid to the government or any department, federal corporation or agency; and (b) what has been the reason or purpose of these collected fees and what are the specific amounts for each reason or purpose?

Q-9942 — February 24, 2011 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to Industry Canada and, more specifically, funding that has been provided through the department for broadband initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) broken down by fiscal year, from 2007-2008 to date, (i) what specific amounts of funding have been approved for projects and under what program was the funding approved, (ii) what are the specific details of each project, (iii) when was the funding approved, (iv) how much funding was requested in the application, (v) who were the applicants for each project; (b) broken down by fiscal year, from 2007-2008 to date, (i) how many applications were submitted that did not receive funding, (ii) what were the individual requested amounts for each application, (iii) who were the applicants for each specific application; and (c) broken down by fiscal year, from 2007-2008 to date, what were the total amounts of funding provided for broadband projects in Canada?

Q-9952 — February 24, 2011 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and, more specifically, the terms of an agreement with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to transfer the delivery of Employment Insurance-funded employment benefits and support measures through the Labour Market Development Agreement (LMDA) effective November 2, 2009, what are the specific terms and conditions of this agreement?

Q-9962 — February 24, 2011 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With respect to Crown copyright: (a) what is the total revenue collected, in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive, by each department or agency for the licensing of the use of works for which copyright is held by Canada or a department or agency of the government of Canada; (b) what are the works which have been so licensed, specifying the title or nature of the work, and the date of publication or creation of the work; (c) what has been the total cost to each department or agency to administer the licensing of those works in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive; (d) how many infringements of Crown or federal government copyright have been the subject of litigation or other action in each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive; (e) what have been the outcomes or resolutions of each such litigation or other action; (f) how many applications to license the use of Crown copyright works have been declined or rejected since fiscal year 2005-2006, specifying the title or nature of the work, the date of publication or creation of the work and the reason for denying or rejecting the application; and (g) what steps, if any, has the government taken to mitigate the impact or costs to users of perpetual Crown copyright in unpublished works?

Q-9972 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to the safety management systems (SMS) put in place by airlines since 2005, and following the appearance of the Chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on February 21, 2007: (a) how many SMS inspections were carried out by Transport Canada inspectors, and on which airlines; (b) for each inspection carried out by Transport Canada, was the airline in compliance with the security regulations in place at the time of inspection; (c) for each inspection that was completed on an airline that was not in compliance with the regulations, what measures were taken by the airline to ensure that compliance was achieved; (d) did Transport Canada verify Aveos SMS compliance and, if yes, when will its report be concluded; and (e) does Transport Canada intend to review the SMS regulations that airlines are subject to in the near future?

Q-9982 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to the national crime prevention strategy and the youth gang prevention fund: (a) how much money has been spent on each of these programs in each fiscal year since 2005-2006; and (b) how much money has been spent on advertising for each of these programs in each fiscal year since 2005-2006?

Q-9992 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to the report entitled "The Unified Family Court Summative Evaluation", released in March 2009 by the Department of Justice: (a) what progress has been made on each of the three recommendations outlined in section 8; (b) since fiscal year 2002-2003, what initiatives, as indicated on page 8 of the English version of the report, has the Department of Justice launched to enhance the level of services that provincial and territorial governments provide in the area of family law; and (c) how much federal funding was spent in each fiscal year since 2002-2003 on every initiative identified in (b)?

Q-10002 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) — With respect to a letter relating to the Canada Evidence Act sent by the Minister of Justice to Professor Mike Lahaie, Canadore School of Law and Justice, on January 18, 2010: (a) does section 4 of this Act apply only to spouses in opposite-sex marriages; (b) does section 4 include spouses in same-sex marriages; (c) does the Minister intend on introducing any legislation to revise section 4 of this Act; and (d) in light of the Minister’s suggestion that individuals should challenge the interpretation of this section on constitutional grounds, does the Minister intend to restore the Court Challenges Program which was discontinued on September 25, 2006?

Q-10012 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Freeman (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant) — With regard to Old Age Security payments, how many Canadians are currently estimated to be eligible for but do not receive: (a) the Guaranteed Income Supplement and, of these, how many are Quebeckers; (b) the Allowance for the Survivor and, of these, how many are Quebeckers; and (c) the Spouse’s Allowance and, of these, how many are Quebeckers?

Q-10022 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Zarac (LaSalle—Émard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Veterans Affairs Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10032 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Zarac (LaSalle—Émard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Public Works and Government Services Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10042 — February 28, 2011 — Mrs. Zarac (LaSalle—Émard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of National Defence: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10052 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With regard to BlackBerry devices owned by the government: (a) how many operational BlackBerry devices does each department, agency and crown corporation currently have; and (b) how many older or obsolete BlackBerry devices does Public Works and Government Services Canada currently hold which are not in use?

Q-10062 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With regard to the $280,000 that the Minister of Public Safety asked to be transferred to the his Regional Office in Winnipeg: (a) for what were these funds intended to be used; (b) why was this expense not anticipated at the beginning of the fiscal year; and (c) how many staff, paid and unpaid, currently work at the Minister's Regional Office?

Q-10072 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Privy Council Office: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10082 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Justice Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10092 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10102 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Status of Women Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10112 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Department of Canadian Heritage, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10122 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to the sale of Statistics Canada data and products, how much revenue external to Government of Canada sources did Statistics Canada make in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 from the sale of products and services, broken down by Census-related and non-Census-related products and services, excluding special surveys?

Q-10132 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10142 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Department of National Defence, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10152 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Public Safety Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10162 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Privy Council Office, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10172 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — With regard to Canadian International Development Agency funding since 2009, what is the name of every organization that has not had its funding renewed?

Q-10182 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office, as of February 15, 2011, how many people did it employ and, of those: (a) how many make a salary of $100,000 per year or more; and (b) how many make a salary of $50,000 per year or less?

Q-10192 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Ratansi (Don Valley East) — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, for every year since 2006, how many full-time staff have been employed by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office?

Q-10202 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Minna (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, for all correspondence received since February 6, 2006, that was addressed to the Prime Minister, how many pieces of correspondence had personal contact information recorded and transferred to the Conservative Party of Canada?

Q-10212 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Minna (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the government's repsonse to Q-799, particularly the Minister of Natural Resouces' statement that from fiscal year 2006-2007 to the current fiscal year the Port Hope Area Initiative was budgeted to spend a total of $53.4 million but spent only $51.9 million, why was it necessary to request an additional $52.5 million from the Treasury Board?

Q-10222 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Minna (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the government's response to Q-795, particularly the Minister of Natural Resouces' statement in the answer to part (c) that no construction has begun on the Port Hope Area Initiative, why have 19 claims for over $800,000 been paid out for this initiative?

Q-10232 — February 28, 2011 — Ms. Minna (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources, for every year since 2006, how many people have been employed by the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office?

Q-10242 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10252 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at Health Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10262 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to grants and contributions since 2008 at the Public Health Agency of Canada, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-10272 — February 28, 2011 — Mr. Brison (Kings—Hants) — With regard to the Department of Natural Resources, are there any unlicensed low level radioactive waste storage sites in Canada and, if so, where are they located?

Q-10282 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier) — With respect to the Skills Link program, in the last fiscal year and in the current fiscal year: (a) by riding and by year, (i) how many applications were submitted, (ii) how many applications were deemed eligible, (iii) how many applications were deemed eligible but not approved by the Minister, (iv) how many applications were recommended but not approved by the Minister, (v) how many applications were approved by the Minister; (b) by riding and by year, (i) with respect to question (a)(i), what is the total dollar amount of applications submitted, (ii) with respect to question (a)(ii), what is the total dollar amount of applications deemed eligible, (iii) with respect to question (a)(iii), what is the total dollar amount of applications deemed eligible but rejected by the Minister, (iv) with respect to question (a)(iv), what is the total dollar amount of applications approved by the Minister; (c) in relation to (a)(ii), was the Boscoville 2000 application deemed eligible (i) by the local Service Canada Centre, (ii) by the regional Service Canada Centre, (iii) by Service Canada’s headquarters; (d) in relation to question (a)(iii), was the Boscoville 2000 application recommended to the Minister; (e) did the Minister reject the Boscoville 2000 application; (f) were funds remaining in the Skills Link envelope when the Boscoville 2000 application was evaluated; (g) in relation to (f), what funds remained in the Skills Link envelope by region and subregion when the Boscoville 2000 application was rejected; (h) with respect to the handling of the Boscoville 2000 application, did the Minister issue instructions to her staff and, if so, what were these instructions; (i) with respect to the Boscoville 2000 application, what were the grounds for refusal; and (j) with respect to the letter sent by Mr. Rodriguez on September 23, 2010, (i) did the Minister receive and read the letter, (ii) what instructions were given by the Minister to follow up on the letter, (iii) was the application evaluated again in response to the letter?

Q-1029 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Westmount—Ville-Marie, Wascana and Nickel Belt, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1030 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Brossard—La Prairie, Honoré-Mercier, Parkdale—High Park, British Columbia Southern Interior and Edmonton—Strathcona, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1031 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, Brampton—Springdale, Etobicoke North, Malpeque and Random—Burin—St. George's, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1032 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Welland, Yukon, St. Paul's, Mississauga—Brampton South and Cape Breton—Canso, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1033 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis, Scarborough Southwest, Mississauga South, Sudbury and Avalon, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1034 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Ajax—Pickering, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, London—Fanshawe, Markham—Unionville and Ottawa South, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-1035 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper by the Members of Parliament for Scarborough—Guildwood, Brampton West, Charlottetown, Winnipeg South Centre and Labrador, answered or made Orders for Return and tabled in the 40th Parliament, what is the government’s estimate for: (a) the number of hours expended in finding, preparing and translating each answer or Order for Return for tabling in the House of Commons; and (b) the estimated cost in dollars to find and prepare the information, and translate each answer or Order for Return?

Q-10362 — March 1, 2011 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With regard to the 52 recommendations made in the report entitled “Issues Related to the High Number of Murdered and Missing Women in Canada” by the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials Missing Women Working Group, released September 2010, why were there no recommendations directed towards ensuring the safety of sex workers?

Q-10372 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to declining fish stocks in the Maritimes, especially in the Gulf Region, and the predatory effects of seals thereon, does the government intend to increase the quota for the culling of the Harp Seal and the Grey Seal herds to mitigate the seals’ impact on fish stocks?

Q-10382 — March 1, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the Small Craft Harbours program and the $3.2 million announced on April 23, 2010, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to improve Small Craft Harbours in Prince Edward Island: (a) how much of the $3.2 million has been spent or has been identified as going to be spent in fiscal year 2010-2011; and (b) where was the money spent and how much money was spent on each harbour?

Q-10392 — March 1, 2011 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to the recent changes to the way in which Service Canada will be delivering services: (a) what is the rationale for changing the way in which Service Canada has been operating across Canada; (b) how much money is to be saved by undertaking such changes; (c) how many Service Canada community offices will be closed beacuse of this decision; (d) how many people will lose their jobs as a result of this decision; and (e) what are the supposed benefits of such changes?

Q-10402 — March 1, 2011 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to rural Canadians and the government's increased emphasis on accessing government services via the Internet: (a) what is the government's plan to address rural Canadians' lack of access to basic Internet; (b) what is the government's plan to ensure that rural Canadians who have no access to an Internet connection can access government programs and services in a timely manner; and (c) what is the government's plan to ensure that Canadians are technologically literate and capable of using the Internet to access essential government services?

Q-10412 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche) — With respect to the Dalhousie spur line: (a) on what date did the Minister of Transport authorize CN to discontinue this rail line; and (b) what were the reasons for this decision?

Q-10422 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche) — With respect to the National Highway System (NHS), for core routes, feeder routes and remote northern routes: (a) what is the process for suggesting the addition of a new route to the Council of Ministers of Transportation and Highway Safety; and (b) how many provinces and territories must support the addition of a new route for it to be included in the NHS?

Q-10432 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With respect to PPP Canada Inc., for fiscal years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 to date: (a) as concerns the first and second rounds of project proposals, (i) how many projects have been selected for funding, (ii) what amount of funding has been committed to each project, (iii) how many applications were received for the funding of projects within or substantially connected with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and (b) if any projects were identified in the response to (a)(iii), what is the general status of each associated application, specifying, for example, whether the application has been rejected or is currently being reviewed?

Q-10442 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to Service Canada’s job cuts in rural areas: (a) is Service Canada planning to reverse its decision to eliminate jobs in the riding of Cardigan; (b) what are Service Canada’s reasons for cutting jobs in rural areas and moving them to larger centers; (c) how many jobs will be cut permanently, both in the Cardigan riding and nation-wide; and (d) what are the projected overall long-term effects on rural populations with regard to access to government services?

Q-10452 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. MacAulay (Cardigan) — With regard to the government’s use of random selection in selecting applicants for jobs in the Public Service: (a) why is this process used over other possible selection processes; and (b) does the government have any plans to eliminate the random selection process in the future?

Q-10462 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Canadian Heritage: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10472 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10482 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at NAV CANADA: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10492 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10502 — March 2, 2011 — Ms. Folco (Laval—Les Îles) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Natural Resources Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10512 — March 2, 2011 — Ms. Folco (Laval—Les Îles) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Industry Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10522 — March 2, 2011 — Ms. Folco (Laval—Les Îles) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10532 — March 2, 2011 — Ms. Folco (Laval—Les Îles) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10542 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Canadian International Development Agency: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10552 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Public Safety Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10562 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10572 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Western Economic Diversification Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10582 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Coderre (Bourassa) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of Finance: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10592 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Coderre (Bourassa) — With regard to the operating budget freeze at Environment Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-10602 — March 2, 2011 — Mr. Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte) — Regarding the operations and management of Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI), what are the details of: (a) MAI’s (i) Corporate Plan 2004-2005 to 2009-2010, (ii) Corporate Plan 2005-2006 to 2010-2011, (iii) Corporate Plan 2006-2007 to 2011-2012, (iv) Corporate Plan 2007-2008 to 2012-2013, (v) Corporate Plan 2008-2009 to 2013-2014, (vi) Corporate Plan 2009-2010 to 2014-2015; (b) each of the respective Corporate Plan Summaries for each Five Year Corporate Plan identified in (a); (c) all Minutes of Meetings of the Board of Directors of MAI held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (d) all minutes, records or notes of Corporate Planning Sessions of the Board of Directors of MAI held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (e) all President’s Reports submitted to the Board of Directors of MAI between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (f) all Chief Executive Officer's (CEO) Reports to the Board of Directors of MAI submitted between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (g) all reports, minutes of meetings or record of meetings held between either the President, the CEO or the Board of Directors or any Committee of the Board of Directors with either the Minister of State (Transport) or the Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (h) all reports, minutes of meetings or record of meetings held between either the President, the CEO or the Board of Directors or any Committee of the Board of Directors and either the Deputy Minister of Transport Canada or any Assistant or Associate Deputy Minister of Transport Canada held between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2011; (i) all draft reports, findings, recommendations and conclusions forwarded to Transport Canada by the two firms, Fleetway Incorporated and Oceanic Consulting Corporation, which were contracted to provide input on various aspects of MAI’s fleet renewal deliberations, as referred to in the President’s Report to the Board of Directors of MAI on September 23, 2005; (j) the final reports, findings, recommendations and conclusions submitted to either MAI or to Transport Canada by each of the two firms, Fleetway Incorporated and Oceanic Consulting Corporation, whom were contracted by either MAI or Transport Canada to provide input on various aspects of MAI’s fleet renewal; (k) all responses made by MAI to Transport Canada regarding MAI’s position on each of the recommendations arising out of MAI’s Advisory Committee report chaired by Captain Sid Hynes, as was requested of MAI by the Deputy Minister of Transport Canada, along with any replies to these messages from the recipients; (l) all minutes, records and notes of the meeting or meetings held between officials of MAI and representatives of Canadian shipyards regarding MAI’s fleet renewal requirements and bidding opportunities of new vessels; (m) all minutes, records and notes prepared by management officials of MAI providing references to an analysis on the future fleet renewal to either the President of MAI, the CEO of MAI or to the members of the Board of Directors of MAI; (n) all minutes, records and notes including electronic messages prepared by Transport Canada officials for either the Minister of Transportation, Communities and Infrastructure or the Minister of State (Transport) or to members of their respective offices, regarding analysis and discussion of the future fleet renewal recommendations provided by Fleetway Incorporated and by Oceanic Consulting Corporation along with any replies to these messages from the recipients; (o) all minutes, records and notes including electronic messages prepared by Transport Canada to the Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities or to the Minister of State (Transport) or to members of their respective offices, pertaining to the motion passed by MAI’s Board of Directors that MAI’s fleet replacement program consist of four new vessels along with any replies to these messages from the recipients; (p) all costs incurred to re-position the MV Blue Puttees from MAI facilities to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the unveiling ceremony presided over by the Prime Minister on February 11, 2011; (q) all costs incurred by MAI in the re-position the MV Blue Puttees from MAI facilities to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for public display during the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador (HNL) Annual General Meeting and Convention held between February 24 to 27, 2011; (r) the cost of all public relations, advertising, marketing and promotion planning, preparation, activities and campaigns broken down by event or campaign incurred by or on behalf of MAI between April 1, 2010, and March 1, 2011; (s) any incident reports from events that occurred affecting the MV Blue Puttees while in transit to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the February 11, 2011, unveiling ceremony including the situation of listing of the vessel while enroute and the damage that occurred to both the St. John’s Port Authority docking facilities and to the MV Blue Puttees while docking in St. John’s for that event; and (t) any planned or potential labour force adjustment strategies or requirements within MAI expected or possible in the next three calendar years?

Q-10612 — March 3, 2011 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to Canada-Iran trade relations: (a) how many trade commissioners does Canada have in Iran and what is the nature of their work; (b) what is the nature and extent of Canada-Iran trade, in what areas does such trade exist, and is any trade carried out with Iran in the energy, technology, banking, insurance, and/or transportation sector; (c) is there any Export Development Corporation support for any Canadian companies operating in Iran and, if so, what is the nature of that support; (d) what bilateral agreements exist between Canada and Iran and do these bilateral agreements comport with the United Nations and Canadian sanctions; (e) do the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA) regulations enacted by Canada in July 2010 apply to the Canadian subsidiaries of foreign corporations doing business with Iran and, if not, will the government amend the SEMA regulations to ensure that it is applicable to these subsidiaries; and (f) has the government enacted any forms of sanctions respecting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or any of its agents?

Q-10622 — March 3, 2011 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — With regard to the firearms training program for Canada Border Services Agency officers: (a) how many training facilities are there; (b) where are these facilities located; (c) is accommodation for trainees and trainers located on site or provided through commercial sources; and (d) what is the duration of the program for the trainees?

Q-10632 — March 3, 2011 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — With regard to the corporate asset review announced in the 2008 Economic and Fiscal Statement: (a) how many assets have been reviewed; (b) which assets were reviewed; and (c) were assets sold and, if so, (i) how many, (ii) what were they, (iii) what were the purchase prices, (iv) who were the buyers?

Q-10642 — March 3, 2011 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — With regard to public opinion polling across all governmental departments since January 1, 2011: (a) how many polls were conducted by each department; and (b) for each poll, what (i) was the subject matter of the poll, (ii) questions were asked, (iii) was the sample size, (iv) was the period of time in which the poll was conducted, (v) were the results, (vi) was the department for which the poll was conducted?

Q-10652 — March 3, 2011 — Mrs. Simson (Scarborough Southwest) — With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 granted by Status of Women Canada since January 1, 2008, what are: (a) the names of the recipients; (b) the amounts of the grant or contribution; (c) the dates of the grant or contribution; (d) the dates of length of funding; and (e) the descriptions of the purpose?

Q-10662 — March 3, 2011 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to the Air Travellers Security Charge in 2010: (a) how much money was collected and where was this money spent, in both real and accrual sums; and (b) does the government have any information concerning how this fee compares to airport security charges in other countries and, if so, what are the details of this information?

2 Response requested within 45 days