House Publications

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

Bilingual view PDF


Monday, September 19, 2011 (No. 15)

Questions

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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.

Q-1² — June 6, 2011 — — With regard to corporate taxation, what is the total amount of deferred corporate taxes for the tax years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010?

Q-2² — June 6, 2011 — — With regard to corporate taxation: (a) how many corporations in Canada paid no tax in each of the last ten years; and (b) for each corporation identified in (a), what were its revenues and its profits in each of the last ten years?

Q-3² — June 6, 2011 — — With regard to the expenditures of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as identified in the 2011-12 Main Estimates: (a) what programs are funded under the lines (i) Northern Land, Resources and Environmental Management (page 191), (ii) Contribution for promoting the safe use, development, conservation and protection of the North’s natural resources (page 194), (iii) Contributions for promoting the political, social and scientific development of Canada’s three territories (page 195), (iv) Contributions for promoting regional development in Canada’s three territories (page 197), (v) Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Community Development (page 196); and (b) for each program identified in (a), what are the names or identities of each individual recipient of funds from each program and what amount of funding was provided to each recipient?

Q-4² — June 6, 2011 — — With regard to the PROminent FUNCtionaries of the Communist Party (PROFUNC), run by the government between 1950-1983: (a) when requested by an individual who believes his or her name may be on the PROFUNC list, will the government disclose whether or not that individual's name is on the list; (b) what was done with the names on the PROFUNC list once PROFUNC was discontinued; (c) were any of the names or was any of the information about individuals named on the PROFUNC list ever turned over to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), or any other security agency, at any time after 1983; (d) were any of the names or was any of the information about individuals named on the list ever shared with the Government of the United States or any of its security, policing or military bodies; (e) did any of the RCMP personnel who helped compile or maintain PROFUNC work for CSIS or other security agencies following the end of the program; and (f) what other materials were created by individuals working for PROFUNC between 1950-1983 (i.e., minutes of meetings, reports filed by security agents, other documents)?

Q-5² — June 6, 2011 — — What is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2009-2010, up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Vancouver East, identifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

Q-6² — June 6, 2011 — — With respect to the Veterans Burial Regulations and the Corporation named by the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to administer the Veterans Funeral and Burial program, specifically the Last Post Fund (LPF): (a) what is the annual amount of financial support and funding provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (b) what is the statistical information, provided to the minister, on reimbursements provided by the LPF to assist in payment of funeral and burial costs for the estates of (i) First World War veterans, (ii) Second World War veterans, (iii) Korean War veterans, (iv) estates of veterans who received a disability benefit from Veterans Affairs Canada, (iv) estates of allied veterans; (c) what are the details of the annual administrative and operating costs of the LPF from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (d) what are the details of the annual program costs of the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (e) what are the details of the annual salary costs for LPF staff from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (f) what are the details of how frequently business plans, operating budgets, capital budgets and performance reports are submitted by the Corporation to the Minister; (g) what are the details of any departmental analysis concerning the raising of the means test for eligibility for support through the Veterans Funeral and Burial program; (h) what are the details of any departmental analysis concerning the extension of eligibility for a funeral and burial to all estate-tested Canadian Forces (CF) and RCMP veterans; (i) what is the estimated financial cost of extending eligibility to the Veterans Funeral and Burial program to all estate-tested CF and RCMP; (j) how often does the department conduct an assurance audit of the LPF; (k) when was the last time the government conducted an assurance audit of the LPF; and (l) when does the department plan to conduct the next assurance audit of the LPF?

Q-7² — June 6, 2011 — — With respect to Canadian Forces veterans trying to obtain an end to the deduction of Pension Act disability payments from Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) Long Term Disability benefits: (a) what is the total amount of money spent by all departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, from March 2007 to 2011 inclusively, on the defence against the SISIP class action lawsuit; (b) what is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel, from March 2007 to 2011 inclusively, on the SISIP class action lawsuit; and (c) what is the total amount of money spent by all government departments and agencies on the SISIP class action lawsuit, from March 2007 to 2011 inclusively, including all costs associated with the work of the Department of Justice?

Q-8² — June 6, 2011 — — With regard to veterans’ long-term care facilities and veterans’ contract beds in community care facilities: (a) what are all facilities, by province and territory, that are under contract by the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide veterans' beds; (b) for each facility identified in (a), what is (i) the number of beds, (ii) the average cost of a veteran’s bed; (c) when, by facility and province or territory, does the department expect to close veterans' beds based on the declining population of its Second World War and Korean War veteran clientele; (d) what are the details of any departmental analysis concerning the expansion of the definition of eligible veterans for admittance to veterans' health care centres; (e) what are the details of any departmental analysis concerning the government’s payment for veterans' beds at long-term care facilities or community care facilities for the spouses of Second World War and Korean War veterans; (f) does the department have any estimates of the cost of paying for veterans' beds at veterans’ long-term care or community care facilities for the spouses of Second World War and Korean War veterans and, if so, what are they; (g) what, if any, are the plans for the long-term care of modern-day Canadian Forces (CF) veterans who require long-term care and do not meet the criteria for admittance to veterans’ beds at veterans’ long-term care or community care facilities; and (h) is the department engaged in any discussion of the development of specialized medical centres for modern-day CF and RCMP veterans?

Q-9² — June 6, 2011 — — With regard to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB), legislated by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act: (a) who are all permanent and temporary members of the Board, broken down by province and territory, appointed by the Governor in Council since 2006; (b) has the government considered disbanding the VRAB; (c) has the government considered modifying the VRAB; (d) has the government considered implementing a policy to ensure that VRAB appointees by the Governor in Council must have (i) military or RCMP experience, (ii) medical experience; (e) what were the total annual federal funds provided to the VRAB from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (f) what is a breakdown of the annual spending of the VRAB, from 2006 to 2011 inclusively, as it relates to (i) program costs, (ii) administration costs, (iii) salary costs of the VRAB board members, (iv) travel costs for the VRAB board members, (v) VRAB staff costs, (vi) VRAB staff travel costs; (g) how many reports has the VRAB chairperson made to the Minister with respect to the use of resources allocated to the Board from 2006 to 2011 inclusively; (h) when was the last time the Department of Veterans Affairs completed an assurance audit of the VRAB and when is the department planning to conduct the next audit; (i) how often does the department conduct assurance audits of the VRAB; (j) has the department planned an extensive review of the administration of the VRAB; (k) does the Department of Veterans Affairs regularly analyze the reasons why pension decisions are overturned by the VRAB in favour of the client with regard to the interpretation of (i) legislation, (ii) medical issues, (iii) legal issues; (l) has the VRAB provided information to the department on how many pension decisions, made since the VRAB's inception, have been in favour of the veteran client using the benefit of the doubt clause (section 70); and (m) how many pension matters or cases has the VRAB referred back to the Minister for reconsideration, by year, from 2006 to 2011 inclusively?

Q-10² — June 6, 2011 — — With respect to the full process currently being undertaken by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) regarding chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), including the August 26, 2010, meeting of the Scientific Expert Working Group (SEWG) and the CIHR’s “knowledge synthesis review”: (a) what is the accepted operating definition of “conflict of interest” for the CIHR, (i) why was no disclosure statement made by all participants who attended the August 26, 2010, joint meeting of the CIHR and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC), (ii) are there plans to provide an opportunity to declare possible conflicts of interest subsequent to the meeting; (b) what are the details of all information produced and circulated by the CIHR in January 2011 regarding follow-up care for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and to which organizations was the information sent; (c) will the disclosure statement to be signed by members of the SEWG at its next meeting in June 2011 include specific reference to any (i) consultancy, (ii) grant support, (iii) membership on advisory councils, (iv) speaker’s bureau, (v) other sources of funding a member might have; (d) how does the CIHR plan to ensure that all members of the SEWG have the same understanding of private or personal interests that could influence decision-making; (e) will all disclosure statements in (c) be made publicly available and, if so, when, and, if not, why not; (f) which, if any, of the SEWG’s members have been trained in Dr. Zamboni’s methods and by whom were these members trained; (g) which, if any, of the SEWG’s members have watched diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI and, for each member identified (i) where did this observation take place, (ii) under what guidance, (iii) how many images and treatments were studied by the member; (h) which, if any, of the SEWG’s members have undertaken diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI and, for each member identified, (i) where were these actions performed, (ii) under what guidance, (iii) how many images and treatments were performed by the member; (i) does the CIHR recognize the emerging scientific discipline of neurovascular disease; (j) does the SEWG include any members of the International Society for NeuroVascular Disease (ISNVD) and, if so, who are these members, and, if not, why not; (k) which, if any, members of the SEWG have attended any of the ISNVD’s conferences, specifying for each such member the conferences that he or she attended; (l) does the inclusion of investigators of the seven MS Society-funded studies in the SEWG comply with the CIHR’s operating definition of “conflict of interest” and, if so, what are the reasons that explain this compliance; (m) regarding the “knowledge synthesis review”, (i) what is the protocol for the review, (ii) how is research deemed to be, or not to be, pertinent, (iii) who specifically is undertaking the review, how were they chosen, and what expertise do they have to undertake the review, (iv) why has the CIHR decided to have them undertake the review, (v) what are the CIHR’s reasons for not having the SEWG undertake the review, (vi) what is the cost of the review, (vii) what is a comprehensive list of abstracts to be reviewed, (viii) what additional material, people, or other sources will be consulted, (ix) will the review include scientific evidence presented at all the major scientific conferences on CCSVI to date, namely, Hamilton (February 2010), New York (July 2010), Washington (October 2010), Katowice (March 2011), Bologna (March 2011), Chicago (April 2011), and San Diego (May 2011), (x) will the review include contacting the leading experts in the field, asking for their unpublished data, visiting their laboratories and operating theatres, (xi) if the answer to (m)(x) is in the affirmative, what, if any, protocol has been established for each contact, and what, if any, weighting will be applied to this evidence; (n) how does the CIHR plan to weigh or asses the seven MS Society-funded studies and the “knowledge synthesis review” in its establishment of any future policy, particularly in its deliberations on whether to undertake clinical trials for CCSVI in Canada; (o) which , if any, members of the SEWG have attended any CCSVI conferences, specifying for each such member (i) what conferences he or she attended, (ii) in what capacity, (iii) who paid for the trip or attendance at the conference, (iv) what written evidence did he or she report to either the CIHR or SEWG, (v) if no written evidence was reported, why not; (p) which members of the CIHR have attended any CCSVI conferences, specifying for each such member (i) what conferences he or she attended, (ii) in what capacity, (iii) who paid for the trip or attendance at the conference, (iv) what written evidence he/she reported to either the CIHR or SEWG, (v) if no written evidence was reported, why not; (q) why has the CIHR decided not to further investigate CCSVI through clinical trials; (r) why has the CIHR decided not to follow recommendations made by the Ontario Association of Neurologists, the Canadian Society of Radiologists, the Canadian Society of Vascular Surgery, the American Society of Interventional Radiology, and the International Union of Phlebology regarding CCSVI; (s) what does the CIHR consider an “appropriate pace”, a term used in its May 18, 2011, e-mail to Dr. Kirsty Duncan, Member of Parliament for Etobicoke North, for the introduction to Canada of any potential new medical treatment for any medical condition, and how much evidence does the CIHR consider is required before a treatment should undergo clinical trials in Canada in terms of (i) the number of procedures undertaken, (ii) the number of countries undertaking the procedure, (iii) scientific evidence presented in academic peer-reviewed journals, (iv) scientific evidence presented at academic conferences, (v) scientific evidence presented at academic conferences for conditions that are progressive diseases, especially progressive diseases for which there are limited or no options for treatment; (t) what is the CIHR’s accepted protocol, including all necessary steps, for bringing a new treatment to clinical trials in Canada, (i) when was the protocol established, (ii) what treatments have undergone clinical trials as a result of the protocol, (iii) which treatments have been rejected to date; (u) is the creation of a SEWG a standard step in the CIHR’s protocol for bringing a new treatment to clinical trials in Canada, and, (i) if so, since the creation of the protocol, what are all new treatments and their associated SEWGs, (ii) if not, why was this step deemed necessary for approval of clinical trials for CCSVI; (v) what are the last five medical treatments for any medical condition accepted by the CIHR for use in Canada and, for each treatment, what are the details of all evidence required by the CIHR in its decision to have the treatment undergo clinical trials, including, but not limited to, the number of procedures undertaken, the countries undertaking the procedure, and scientific evidence presented in both peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences; and (w) with regard to the MS registry announced March 23, 2011, (i) who specifically is collecting the information, (ii) what precise information is being collected, (iii) what consent will be necessary from patients for any data collection, (iv) when will information begin to be collected, (v) what specific information is being collected regarding the treatment of CCSVI, (vi) what information is being gathered or tracking is being done of individuals who have chosen to have the liberation procedure outside Canada?

Q-11² — June 6, 2011 — — With respect to depleted uranium (DU), military service, and Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) benefits and programs: (a) what are all potential sources of DU to which Canadian Forces (CF) members and veterans might have been exposed between 1990 and the present; (b) what are any operations between 1990 and the present that might have brought CF members and veterans into direct or close contact with DU, including, but not limited to, operations in which Canadian personnel seconded to other military forces were involved; (c) did any CF member or veteran serve between 1999 and 2003 in areas assessed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to be DU areas; (d) what, if any, DU munitions, vehicles made with DU, or ships carrying DU munitions, were used by CF between 1990 and the present; (e) what are all possible exposure routes for each source of DU identified in (a), (b), and (d); (f) what, if any, field measurements were taken around any DU source identified in (a), (b), and (d) and, if such measurements were taken, what was the level of contamination of the environment for each site, for each time sampled; (g) what, if any, studies were undertaken by the Department of National Defence (DND), or any other federal government department or crown corporation, from 1990 to the present, regarding DU environmental contamination linked to the military and what were the chief findings of each such report, including (i) whether it identified a need or made a recommendation to work with caution in DU contaminated areas, (ii) whether it identified a need or made a recommendation to do policy work regarding DU contaminated areas; (h) what follow-up took place concerning the chief recommendations of each report identified in (g), as well as concerning the issues identified in each of (g)(i) and (g)(ii); (i) what, if any, clean-up operations were undertaken in impact zones between 1990 and the present, and, if such operations were undertaken, why was each clean-up operation deemed necessary, and what national or international recommendations were followed in each clean-up; (j) which, if any, experts were consulted to determine any possible DU contamination between 1990 and the present, and, if experts were consulted, who were they, and in what field or fields did each expert work; (k) what, if any, specific training, equipment and guidance was given to CF members and veterans who were required to work in areas of DU contamination or to conduct any DU field assessments and clean-ups; (l) what, if any, specific radiation field measurement and health and safety equipment was provided to CF members and veterans, including equipment used to determine the presence of DU, and what specific training was provided concerning the use of any such equipment; (m) what, if any, training, equipment and guidance was given to CF members and veterans concerning the handling of both intact and damaged weapons previously used to fire DU munitions; (n) from 1990 to the present (i) what was the CF’s policy regarding transportation, use, exposure, risk mitigation, and testing of DU from 1990 to the present, (ii) how did or does the policy comply with all relevant guidelines and regulations for the protection of the environment and personnel, including, but not limited to, those established in the Canada Labour Code, by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and through the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, (iii) were the guidelines and regulations identified in (ii) followed during CF operations abroad, (iv) how was the policy elaborated in (n)(i), enforced during CF activities both in Canada and abroad; (o) is there a protocol accepted by the government for urine testing for DU and what are its details, including, but not limited to, (i) who should be screened, (ii) following what exposures should screening occur, (iii) which laboratories were or are used for the screening, (iv) what criteria have been used to select the laboratory that conducts the screening and how can quality assurance in screening processes and results be ensured, (v) the maximum acceptable delay between DU exposure to initial screening, (vi) the screening method and how that method was chosen, (vii) the screening schedule, (viii) any follow-up mechanisms, (ix) how screening is documented, (x) when this protocol was accepted; (p) what, if any, screening procedure exists for potential DU exposure for CF members and veterans, including, but not limited to, (i) an exposure questionnaire, (ii) a 24-hour urine collection test, (iii) a detailed physical exam, (iv) clinical tests of organ systems function; (q) what, if any, DU follow-up program or similar program intended to screen and monitor health problems associated with DU exposure is available to CF members and veterans; (r) what, if any, CF members or veterans have been identified and tracked following potential exposure to DU through situations related to (a), (b) and (d), and what was involved in the tracking procedures, specifying whether the tracking included (i) urinary uranium determinations, (ii) clinical laboratory values, (iii) psychiatric and neuro-cognitive assessments, (iv) other forms of tracking; (s) what, if any, summary statistics are now available for cases identified in (r); (t) what, if any, CF members or veterans have been identified and tracked following exposure to (i) vehicles hit with friendly fire, (ii) burning vehicles, (iii) fires involving DU munitions, (iv) the inspection or salvaging of damaged vehicles; (u) what, if any, information is given to CF members or veterans who might have been exposed to harmful DU conditions, and, specifically, how is this information relayed; (v) can CF members or veterans who might have been exposed to harmful DU conditions ask to be screened for DU exposure, if not, why not, and, if so, (i) what procedure do they follow, (ii) who does the testing, (iii) what is the cost of the testing; (w) what are the potential health effects from (i) external exposure to DU, for both low and high dosages, in both the short term and the long term, and (ii) internal exposure to DU, for both low and high dosages, in both the short term and the long term; (x) what, if any, CF members or veterans have applied for compensation associated with DU exposure during military service, specifying (i) the number of requests, (ii) whether compensation was awarded, (iii) whether compensation is pending, (iv) whether compensation is in appeal, (v) how many appeals have been made; (y) have any of DND’s medical or surgical members ever identified a possible link between a CF member’s service or a veteran’s service, exposure to DU, and particular health effects, and, if so, (i) how many times has such a possible link been made by DND’s medical or surgical members, (ii) what follow-up occurred as a result of any identified possible linkages; and (z) does the government have plans to convene a working group to review the latest research on hazardous materials exposure, including, but not limited to, exposure to DU, and possible health effects and, if so, (i) what is the planned scope of the review, (ii) who is to convene the working group, (iii) how are experts to be chosen, (iv) how are conflicts of interest to be avoided and declared, (vi) what is the timeline for the review and the review’s milestones?

Q-12² — June 6, 2011 — — 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 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; and (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-13² — June 6, 2011 — — With regard to the Champlain Bridge in Montreal: (a) what is the volume of correspondence in which a new bridge is requested or complaints are made about traffic congestion as a result of the maintenance and repair of the bridge as received by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, or Transport Canada from (i) individuals, (ii) organizations, (iii) elected representatives; (b) what is the total number of petition signatures received from individuals requesting the construction of a new bridge; (c) what are the names and addresses of the organizations that submitted correspondence as per (a)(ii); and (d) what is the government's reason for not funding the replacement of the Champlain Bridge?

Q-14² — June 6, 2011 — — With regard to infrastructure project applications made under Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) what is the total number of project applications approved, broken down (i) by municipality, (ii) by electoral district in each municipality; (b) what is the total number of project applications rejected, broken down (i) by municipality, (ii) by electoral district in each municipality; and (c) broken down by municipality, what project applications were rejected and, for each, what was (i) the reason for the rejection, (ii) the amount of funding requested, (iii) the electoral district in which the project would have been completed?

Q-15^1-2 — June 6, 2011 — — With regard to the Montreal Port Authority: (a) was the Prime Minister's Spokesperson, Dimitri Soudas, involved in any way in the appointment of the Montreal Port Authority's Chief Executive Officer; and (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, (i) what are the details of this involvement, (ii) did the Prime Minister consent to this involvement?

Q-16² — June 8, 2011 — — With regard to declining fish stocks in Atlantic Canada, especially in the Gulf Region, and the predatory effects of seals thereon: (a) 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; (b) what are the numbers of harp and grey seals harvested during this year’s hunt in (i) the Gulf Region, (ii) off the waters of Newfoundland; (c) what do the numbers in (b)(i) and (ii) represent as a percentage of the total allowable catch (TAC) for both areas; (d) given declining levels of sea ice in the Gulf Region, does the government intend to allow seals to be hunted on land in the future; (e) what is the projected TAC for the 2012 seal hunt; (f) what is the best price for seal pelts in 2011; and (g) what is the expected best price for seal pelts in 2012?

Q-17² — June 8, 2011 — — 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 was spent in fiscal year 2010-2011; (b) how much was identified to be spent in 2010-2011; (c) where was the money spent; and (d) how much money was spent on each harbour?

Q-18² — June 8, 2011 — — With respect to the Investment Canada Act and foreign corporate takeovers of Canadian companies: (a) on an annual and monthly basis from January 1, 1993 to December 31, 2010, how many takeovers were (i) approved, (ii) rejected; (b) for each takeover, what was the aggregate value of acquisition (i) federally, on an annual and monthly basis, (ii) by province, on an annual and monthly basis; (c) distributed federally, on an annual and monthly basis, and by province, on an annual and monthly basis, what are the takeovers, further distributed by the industry sectors (i) resources, (ii) manufacturing, (iii) wholesale and retail trades, (iv) business and service industries, (v) other; (d) in which year since January 1, 1993, did the most foreign takeovers of Canadian companies occur; (e) what is the current position of the government on foreign takeovers; (f) has the Investment Canada Act mandate changed since it was created and, if so, when and how, specifying the details of all amendments to the mandate; (g) in regard to takeovers approved between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 2010, what are the number of jobs affected by these takeovers as submitted by the investors as part of the application for review; (h) how many times has the Competition Policy Review Panel met on an annual and monthly basis, and broken down federally and by province, since its creation; (i) what changes to the Investment Canada Act has the Competition Policy Review Panel recommended; and (j) what other actions have been taken by the government to review the Competition Act and Investment Canada Act?

Q-19² — June 8, 2011 — — With regard to the next phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) how much funding will be allocated from April 1, 2011, until April 1, 2015; (b) what departments and agencies will be responsible for the Plan's implementation; and (c) how much money will be allocated to each department and agency to implement the next phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan?

Q-20² — June 8, 2011 — — With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food: (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 as of April 1, 2011; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees have been hired since April 1, 2011; and (e) what programs received funding cuts as of April 1, 2011?

Q-21^1-2 — June 8, 2011 — — With regard to the 2010 G8/G20 Summits in Ontario: (a) what was the chain of command relating to security; (b) what Canadian law enforcement and security forces were involved; (c) what international security experts or agencies were involved; and (d) did such agencies recommend kettling people at intersections?

Q-22² — June 9, 2011 — — With regard to the Prime Minister’s presence at a National Hockey League finals game in Boston: (a) what was the total cost of the trip; (b) how much did the flight cost; (c) how many staff members, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and public servants accompanied the Prime Minister; (d) which departments paid the travel costs; (e) what were the total hospitality expenses incurred; (f) what organization or person invited the Prime Minister to the game; (g) what are the names of the public servants and staff members from the Prime Minister’s Office that accompanied the Prime Minister on this trip; (h) how much did on-site security cost; and (i) who paid for the tickets?

Q-23² — June 14, 2011 — — With regard to Telus violations of the Do Not Call List and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) Alternate Case Resolutions processes: (a) why was it decided that Telus should make a donation to the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration as opposed to paying Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) to the government that would benefit all Canadians, and who made this decision; (b) what was the amount Telus agreed to pay the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration; (c) what would have been the maximum possible AMP for the violations alleged to have been committed by Telus; (d) what was the process that led to this decision; (e) why was the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration selected to be the recipient of this donation, as opposed to any other institution (e.g., Dalhousie University School of Public Administration); and (f) are any of the Commissioners, the Secretary General or any staff member of the CRTC currently an instructor, lecturer, part-time staff member or in any other way connected to the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration?

Q-24² — June 14, 2011 — — With respect to the National Do Not Call List, as of May 31, 2011: (a) what is the total number and dollar value of Administrative Monetary Penalties that have been imposed to date by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission; (b) what is the total number and dollar value of AMPs that have been paid to date; (c) what is the total number and dollar value of negotiated settlements that have been reached to date; (d) what is the total number and dollar value of negotiated settlements that have been paid to date; and (e) what is the number of companies who have refused to either pay an AMP or reach a negotiated settlement?

Q-25² — June 14, 2011 — — With regard to bonuses granted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for each of fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, how many bonuses were dispersed and what were the amounts of these bonuses, broken down by: (a) fiscal year; (b) individual personnel; (c) region; and (d) departmental division?

Q-26² — June 14, 2011 — — 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) how much funding is each partner and country receiving; and (d) what plans does the government have to inform Parliament and the public regarding this spending?

Q-27² — June 14, 2011 — — 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-28² — June 14, 2011 — — With regard to each meeting of the Treasury Board since April 1, 2009: (a) what was the date of the meeting; (b) where did the meeting occur; (c) who was in attendance; and (d) what was the agenda of the meeting?

Q-29² — June 14, 2011 — — 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-30² — June 14, 2011 — — With regard to grants and contributions applications to federal economic development agencies since April 1, 2010, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

Q-31² — June 14, 2011 — — With regard to the operating budget freeze at federal economic development agencies: (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 as of April 1, 2011; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees have been hired since April 1, 2011; and (e) what programs will be subject to funding cuts as of April 1, 2011?

Q-32² — June 14, 2011 — — With regard to the death of two workers at Vale’s Stobie Mine in Sudbury: (a) what actions has the government undertaken to investigate the deaths; (b) which department led the investigation of the accident in the mine; (c) what are the preliminary results of that investigation; (d) what corrective measures have been recommended to prevent the recurrence of such an accident; (e) what sanctions, if any, does the federal government intend to impose against Vale; and (f) when was the last federal safety inspection conducted at the Vale mine in Sudbury and what were the conclusions of this inspection?

Q-33² — June 14, 2011 — — With regard to government funding within the constituency of Guelph: (a) what was the total amount of funding originally announced, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to and including fiscal year 2010-2011, specifying for each announcement (i) the department or agency responsible for the funding, (ii) the program or initiative from which the funding came, (iii) the project name, (iv) the total value of the project; (b) for each announcement identified in (a) what was, (i) the total amount delivered, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to and including fiscal year 2010-2011, (ii) the department or agency responsible for the delivered funding, (iii) the program or initiative from which the delivered funding came, (iv) the project name, (v) the total value of the project; and (c) broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to and including fiscal year 2010-2011, in each case where the final, total amount delivered, as specified in (b), was different from the funding amount announced, as specified in (a), what was the reason for this discrepancy?

Q-34² — June 14, 2011 — — With regard to infrastructure funding requests since 2006, broken down by infrastructure funding program, including but not limited to the Public Transit Fund, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, the Border Infrastructure Fund, the Infrastructure Canada Program, the Green Infrastructure Fund, and the Building Canada Fund: (a) how many applications for funding have been received; (b) how many applications have been rejected; (c) what is each application that has been rejected, including the date of application; (d) for applications identified in (c), what was the reason for rejection; (e) for applications identified in (c), what was the electoral district of the proposed project; and (f) how many applications are pending decision?

Q-35² — June 15, 2011 — — With respect to government decentralization: (a) does the government have any information on proposals prepared since 2006 on the relocation, from the National Capital area to other regions of Canada, of (i) government departments or parts thereof, (ii) agencies, (iii) Crown corporations; and (b) does the government have any information on assessments completed since 2006 on which of the following entities could be relocated from the National Capital area to other regions of Canada, namely, (i) government departments or parts thereof, (ii) agencies, (iii) Crown corporations?

Q-36² — June 15, 2011 — — With regard to employment in the federal public service: (a) for the period of January 1, 2005, to May 31, 2011, (i) how many people were hired by the federal public service, (ii) how many casual employees were hired by the federal public service, (iii) how many term employees were hired by the federal public service, (iv) how many indeterminate employees were hired by the federal public service, (vi) how many applications for priority employment appointments in the federal public service were submitted by qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces, (vii) how many qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces have received a priority employment appointment, (viii) how many qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces were still on the priority employment appointment list when their eligibility period expired; (b) for the period of 2005 to the present, how many qualified medically released Canadian Forces veterans were hired by each department; and (c) what measures are being taken to extend the priority employment appointments program?

Q-37² — June 15, 2011 — — With respect to the statements by the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment, entitled “Canada’s Green Budget 2009” and “Minister Prentice Highlights the Environment in 2010 Budget”: (a) how many applications were submitted under the 2009 $1 billion investment in clean energy research, development and demonstration projects, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the applicant and in what sector does the applicant work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what were the projected outcomes, (iv) what was the projected return on investment; (b) what, in detail, are all of the clean energy research development and demonstration projects awarded funds through the 2009 $1 billion investment, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the recipient of the funds and in what sector does the recipient work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what was the amount of funding awarded, (iv) what were the projected outcomes, (v) what was the projected return on investment, (vi) has the project been started, is it in progress, or has it been completed, (vii) what, if any, findings, publications, contracts, etc., have resulted from the project, (viii) in what geographic area was the project located; (c) what monies of the 2009 $1 billion investment for clean energy research development and demonstration projects have been spent, (i) what monies remain available, (ii) what, if any, advertising did or does the government undertake to promote the program, (iii) what, if any, costs are associated with any advertising of the program; (d) how many project applications were submitted under the 2009 $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the applicant and in what sector does the applicant work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what were the projected outcomes, (iv) what was the projected return on investment; (e) how many projects were awarded funding through the $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the recipient of the funds and in what sector does the recipient work, (ii) what was the amount of funding awarded, (iii) what were the projected outcomes in terms of reductions in emissions, waste, or other environmental payoffs, (iv) what was the projected return on investment, (v) has the project been started, is it in progress, or has it been completed, (vi) what, if any, findings, publications, contracts, or other significant results have been produced as a result of the project; (f) how many retrofits were undertaken under the 2009 $300 million eco-ENERGY Retrofit program, (i) what was the average cost of a retrofit, (ii) what was the average income of the family or individual undertaking a retrofit, (iii) what was the average household savings on energy, (iv) what was the average household savings in terms of money spent on energy annually, (v) what is the estimated savings to the environment each year, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs); (g) what specific projects were undertaken to maintain federal laboratories for $250 million in 2009, (i) why did the government identify these projects as investments in the environment, (ii) what laboratories benefitted, and what was the investment per lab, (iii) what specific laboratories need maintenance or further maintenance; (h) what specific projects, by station, were undertaken or are being undertaken under the $85 million for key Arctic research stations, why did the government identify these projects as investments in the environment, and, for each project identified, (i) what was the investment, (ii) what is the life expectancy of the investment, (iii) is further work needed, (iv) what projects does the government know still require funding; (i) what progress has been made to date on the $2 million investment in a feasibility study for a world-class Arctic research station, (i) what was the mandate of the feasibility study, (ii) what was its start date, key milestones, and end date, (iii) what, if any, results are available; (j) what are all federal contaminated sites across Canada, and, for each contaminated site identified, (i) where specifically is the site located, (ii) has the site had an environmental assessment (iii) if so, what are the main contaminants at the site, what is the projected cost of remediation, (iv) if not, what is the projected cost of an environmental assessment and the time required for that assessment; (k) is there a priority list for addressing contaminated sites listed in (j), and if so, (i) in what order do the sites appear on that list, (ii) what methodology is used to establish priority, (iii) who undertakes any priority assessments, what are their expertise, and how are experts chosen; (l) how much of the $80.5 million set aside for assessment of federal contaminated sites has been spent to date and what, if any, monies are remaining, (i) how many assessments have been started, are in progress, or have been completed to date, (ii) what are the findings for any completed assessment in terms of the environmental contamination, any threats to human health, and the projected cost of remediation, (iii) how many jobs have been created to date; (m) how much of the $165 million set aside for remediation of federal contaminated sites has been spent to date and what, if any, monies are remaining, (i) what remediation projects are started, are in progress, or have been completed to date, (ii) what are the findings for any completed remediation in terms of reducing environmental contamination and any threats to human health, (iii) what is the cost or projected cost of all remediation projects identified in (m)(i), (iv) how many jobs have been created to date; (n) what specific national parks projects have been undertaken with the $75 million earmarked in 2009, and, for each project identified, (i) what is the park’s name, (ii) what is its location, (iii) what is the total investment, (iv) what is a description of the project; (o) what, if any, progress has the government made on its 2009 $10 million investment in annual reporting of key environmental indicators such as clean air, clean water and GHG emissions, (i) what system was in place for reporting each, (ii) what, if any, system is now in place, (iii) when will the government make use of improvements in data resulting from this investment in its reports; (p) what, if any, progress has the government made on its 2010 $18.4 million investment to enhance the tracking of environmental data through the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators program, (i) what specific projects does the government plan to undertake with the money and, for each project identified, (ii) how much money will be spent, (iii) how will monies spent improve environmental reporting, (iv) when will the government use improvements in its reports; (q) what, if any, action has been taken on the 2010 $100 million Next Generation Renewable Power Initiative; (r) what, if any, consultation regarding environmental assessments has taken place with Aboriginal peoples in 2010, (i) identify all projects that affect Aboriginal communities, (ii) on which of the identified projects in (r)(i) have Aboriginal peoples been consulted to date; (s) how much of the $2.8 million earmarked for consultations with Aboriginal communities has been spent and how much is still available; (t) what are all contaminated Great Lake sites and where specifically is each site located, (i) what is a ranking of these contaminated sites, (ii) what is the method used to determine levels of contamination, (iii) what is the scale used to compare levels of contamination, (iv) what is the government’s definition of “most degraded”, (v) what are all “most degraded” sites, (vi) for each site identified in (t)(v), what is a description of the contamination and what is the cost of the remediation; and (u) what specifically is the $16 million ear-marked for to clean up the “most-degraded” Great Lakes sites, what monies have been spent to date, on what specific projects, and what is the projected return on investment in terms of the environment?

Q-38² — June 16, 2011 — — With regard to the ongoing disputes between the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and one of its former employees, Dr. Chander Grover, between January 1, 2004, and October 31, 2010: (a) how much money has the NRC spent on legal services and costs for services provided by external legal counsel; (b) how much money has the NRC spent on legal services and costs for services provided by the Department of Justice; (c) how much money has the NRC spent on external communications advice; and (d) how much has the NRC spent on external consultants?

Q-39² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to the recent changes in the way with which Service Canada community outreach offices' services will be delivered: (a) what is the rationale for changing the way in which Service Canada has been operating across Canada; (b) how much money will be saved through these changes; (c) how many Service Canada community offices will be closed because 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-40² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to the way with which Service Canada will now be delivering services and the 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-41² — June 20, 2011 — — With respect to government spending in the constituency of , what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, itemized according to: (a) the date the money was received in the riding; (b) the dollar amount of the expenditure; (c) the program from which the funding came; (d) the ministry responsible; and (e) the designated recipient?

Q-42² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to the 2010 round of strategic reviews described and implemented in Budget 2011, specifically for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Marine Atlantic and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what changes does the government intend to implement in order to make the delivery of its programs and services more effective and efficient; (b) what is the rationale for these changes; (c) what are the projected savings; and (d) what are the projected staffing changes to full-time labour, part-time labour and contract labour as a result of the government's changes to the ways it delivers programs and services, broken down by (i) department, (ii) change?

Q-43² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to the departmental name change of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), announced on May 18, 2011, and effective June 13, 2011: (a) what is the government's rationale for the name change, specifically the rationale for (i) replacing "Indian Affairs" with "Aboriginal Affairs", (ii) replacing "Northern Affairs" with "Northern Development"; (b) did a consultation process take place on the implications of the name change, and, if so, (i) with which individuals and organizations, (ii) on which dates, (iii) what recommendations resulted from these consultations; (c) what is the expected impact on First Nation inherent and treaty rights; (d) does the government plan to commit additional resources to programs for Inuit, Métis, non-status Indians and urban Aboriginals; and (e) what is the expected cost of implementing the name change?

Q-44² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to the planned reduction in human resources for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada listed in the 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities: (a) what is the estimated number of employees who will be affected; (b) how many reductions are estimated to be dealt with through attrition; (c) which positions are being eliminated as a part of this reduction, distributed by employee status, title, and program activity; and (d) what is the planned human resources commitment to the Urban Aboriginal Strategy for fiscal years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014?

Q-45² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to the government’s investments in on-reserve housing for First Nations: (a) what is the total annual expenditure on new on-reserve housing construction; (b) what is the total annual expenditure on repair of existing on-reserve housing; (c) which government departments or agencies provide investments in this area; (d) what is the government’s statutory responsibility for on-reserve housing; (e) what was the annual expenditure in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, distributed by department and program activity; and (f) what is the estimated annual expenditure in fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, distributed by department and program activity?

Q-46² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to the maternal and child health of Aboriginal people in Canada: (a) does the government collect data on the rates of maternal and infant mortality, disaggregated by Aboriginal population and, if so, (i) what is the most recent data, (ii) which departments and agencies are responsible for the collection of this data, (iii) what programs do they provide, (iv) what is the annual expenditure per program; (b) what efforts are being made to improve the collection of disaggregated data regarding the maternal and child health of Aboriginals; (c) what community-specific programs exist to improve the maternal and child health of (i) Status Indians on-reserve, (ii) Status Indians off-reserve, (iii) non-Status Indians, (iv) Inuit, (v) Métis, (vi) urban Aboriginals; (d) what is the percentage of pregnant Aboriginal women who receive maternal care (i) within their own community, (ii) outside of their own communities; and (e) what culturally-specific programs are available to support women who give birth outside their community?

Q-47² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to Western Economic Diversification (WED): (a) what was the total dollar value of repayable contributions and of repayable portions of partially-repayable contributions, made during fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; (b) what is the total dollar amount repaid from contributions identified in (a); (c) what was the total value of non-repayable contributions made during fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; (d) for each non-repayable contribution made in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (i) which organization or individual received the contribution, (ii) what was the total dollar amount received, (iii) for what purpose was the contribution granted, (iv) who gave final approval for the contribution; (e) how many contracts were issued by WED in fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; and (f) for each contract issued in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, (i) which organization or individual received the contract, (ii) was the contract tendered or sole-sourced, (iii) if the contract was sole-sourced, why, (iv) if the contract was sole-sourced, who gave final approval, (v) what was the total dollar amount for each contract?

Q-48² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to Western Economic Diversification (WED): (a) what is the total number of applications for green innovation and clean technology projects approved in fiscal year (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; (b) which organization or individual received funding for each project in (a); (c) what dollar amount of funding was granted to each project in (a); (d) what was the total dollar amount of funding granted by WED to projects in (a) in fiscal year (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; (e) for each of the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, what percentage of WED’s total expenses is comprised by the amount specified in the answers to (d)(i), (d)(ii), (d)(iii) and (d)(iv), respectively; (f) what is the total number of applications for green innovation and clean technology projects rejected in fiscal year (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011; and (g) for each project application in (f), what was (i) the dollar amount of funding requested, (ii) the reason for the rejection?

Q-49² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to oil tanker spills on Canada’s coasts: (a) how many oil spills occurred from 1980 to 2011; and (b) for each spill that occurred during this time period, (i) where was the spill located, (ii) from what type of vessel did the spill originate, (iii) what was the carrying capacity of the vessel, (iv) how many cubic litres or barrels of oil was spilled, (v) what was the grade of the oil product spilled, (vi) what measures did the government take to respond to the spill, (vii) what measures did the government take to clean up the spill, (viii) how long did it take to execute (b)(vi) and (b)(vii), (ix) what was the total cost of (b)(vi) and (b)(vii), (x) if applicable, for what dollar amount or percentage of the costs attributed to (b)(vi) and (b)(vii) was the operating company of the vessel held liable, (xi) if applicable, what was the total dollar amount collected from the operating company for (b)(vi) and (b)(vii)?

Q-50² — June 20, 2011 — — With regard to temporary resident visas: (a) for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, how many applications for temporary resident visas were received by the Canadian offices in (i) Beijing, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) Shanghai, (iv) New Delhi, (v) Mumbai, (vi) Chandigardh, (vii) Jakarta, (viii) Seoul, (ix) Kuala Lumpur, (x) Islamabad, (xi) Manila, (xii) Singapore, (xiii) Colombo, (xiv) Bangkok, (xv) Ho Chi Minh City, (xvi) Dhaka, (xvii) Mexico City, (xviii) Guadalajara, (xvix) Monterray, (xx) Prague; and (b) how many applications were issued by the offices listed in (a) for fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011?

Q-51² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, more specifically, the decision to close the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre located in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what are the estimated number of jobs being displaced and what costs are associated with the closure, including (i) wages or salaries, (ii) operational costs; (b) what additional resources will be added to the Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centres in Halifax, Trenton or other locations throughout Canada to compensate for the closure; (c) when and how was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador first notified of this possible closure; (d) what consultations were held with any stakeholder groups and individuals concerning the possible closure and when did they take place; and (e) what groups and organizations have submitted their objections concerning the closure to the Minister and any of his officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

Q-52² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-53² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-54² — June 21, 2011 — — 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 effective November 2, 2009, what are the specific terms and conditions of this agreement?

Q-55² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to the Integrated Relocation Program, the contract for which was awarded to Brookfield Relocation Services in 2009, and for the period from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011: (a) how many relocation files were opened during this period; (b) what is the number of relocation files for each of the various departments and agencies, as well as the tenant-owner breakdown; and (c) for employee transfers involving the sale of property, what are the names of the “listing” real estate agents or brokers and their agencies?

Q-56² — June 21, 2011 — — With respect to trade agreements: (a) what is the number of negotiators, if any, that have been retained from outside the government to represent Canada in current trade negotiations; and (b) has the government considered or implemented plans to undertake a review of the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement in 2014 to evaluate the trade implications for Canada?

Q-57² — June 21, 2011 — — 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; (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; (c) what programs have been implemented to deal with rising sea levels affecting Prince Edward Island; and (d) what advice or assistance has been provided by the Government of Canada to the Government of Prince Edward Island to deal with the impact of rising sea levels on the province?

Q-58² — June 21, 2011 — — With respect to Canada's airports: (a) what is the total amount of federal funding, announced in March 2011, for the Jean Lesage Airport in Quebec City; (b) under what programs was the funding in (a) awarded; (c) what is the total amount of federal funding, announced in February 2011, for the Charlottetown Airport; and (d) under what programs was the funding in (c) awarded?

Q-59² — June 21, 2011 — — With respect to the government's decision not to implement recommendation nine from the June 2009 report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, entitled "Shared Experiences: Comparisons of Veterans Services Offered by Members of the Commonwealth and the G8": (a) what criteria were used to arrive at this decision; (b) what was the policy rationale for the decision; and (c) is the government considering any other information sharing arrangements to better identify veterans and their families in order to ensure that they receive the benefits available to them?

Q-60² — June 21, 2011 — — With respect to benefits paid to Deputy Ministers (DM) of government departments, broken down both by individual and by department, what is the amount of benefits paid to DMs, including, but not limited to: (a) club memberships or membership discounts for personal recreation or socializing purposes, such as fitness clubs, golf clubs or social clubs; (b) season tickets to cultural or sporting events; (c) access to private health clinics and medical services outside those provided by provincial healthcare systems or by the employer's group insured benefit plans; and (d) professional advisory services for personal matters, such as financial, tax or estate planning?

Q-61² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and its programs and initiatives related to homelessness and affordable housing: (a) how much funding is dedicated to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP); (b) what is the status of the RRAP with regard to program delivery for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014; (c) what is the status of any agreements with the provinces with regard to delivery of the RRAP, and, if no agreements are in place, what is the status of any negotiations with the provinces with regard to delivery of the RRAP; (d) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, how many applications for funding under the RRAP have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) rejected; (e) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, (i) what are all applications approved for funding under the RRAP, including the amount of funding approved, (ii) what are all applications denied funding under the RRAP, including the amount of funding requested and the reason for the rejection; (f) how much funding is dedicated to the Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI); (g) what is the status of the AHI with regard to program delivery for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014; (h) what is the status of any agreements with the provinces, with regard to delivery of the AHI, and, if no agreements are in place, what is the status of any negotiations with the provinces with regard to delivery of the AHI; (i) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, how many applications for funding under the AHI have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) rejected; (j) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, (i) what are all applications approved for funding under the AHI, including the amount of funding approved, (ii) what are all applications denied funding under the AHI, including the amount of funding requested and the reason for rejection; (k) how much funding is dedicated to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS); (l) what is the status of the HPS with regard to program delivery for the fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014; (m) what is the status of any agreements with the provinces, with regard to delivery of the HPS, and, if no agreements are in place, what is the status of any negotiations with the provinces with regards to delivery of the HPS; (n) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, how many applications for funding under the HPS have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) rejected; (o) broken down by electoral district, by fiscal year, (i) what are all applications approved for funding under the HPS, including the amount of funding approved, (ii) what are all applications denied funding under the HPS, including the amount of funding requested and the reason for rejection; (p) broken down by year and by type of funding, since 2006, how many new units of affordable housing have been built using CMHC funding; (q) how many people are currently on waiting lists for affordable housing, broken down by (i) province, (ii) municipality; and (r) since 2006, what was the average number of people on a waiting list for affordable housing, broken down (i) by province and year, (ii) by municipality and year?

Q-62² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to the G20 Summit ex gratia payments: (a) to date, how many applications have been approved and paid to claimants; (b) how many applications have been approved but not yet paid to claimants; (c) of the approved applications awaiting payment, what is the reason for payment not being made; (d) how many applications have been rejected; (e) of the applications rejected, what was the reason for rejection; and (f) what are all applications for compensation, the amount of compensation requested, and, if approved, the amount of compensation that was approved?

Q-63² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to the Georgetown South rail line: (a) what is the total volume of correspondence received by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and by departments for which the minister is responsible calling for the electrification of the rail line from (i) individuals, (ii) organizations, (iii) elected officials; (b) what is the total number of petition signatures received by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and by departments for which the minister is responsible calling for the electrification of the rail line; (c) what are the names and addresses of all organizations in (a); (d) since 2006, what reports has the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the departments for which the minister is responsible produced or received regarding (i) the health impacts of diesel trains in urban centres, (ii) the benefits of electrification of urban rail, (iii) the noise pollution of diesel trains; (e) what, if any, federal funding has been provided for the Georgetown South rail line; (f) if federal funding was provided for the Georgetown South rail line, were any conditions put in place requiring the electrification of the rail line; and (g) what is the government's position on making the electrification of urban rail lines a condition for receiving federal funding for transit projects contained within an urban area?

Q-64² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-65² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to consular services: (a) what briefing notes has the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade received or produced regarding consular services in response to recent events in the Middle East and Northern Africa; (b) what measures has the government taken to ensure the safety of Canadians living abroad in response to recent events in the Middle East and Northern Africa; (c) what is the projected budget for consular services abroad over the next 3 years; (d) what impact will any changes in the projected budget for consular services have on the number of personnel working in consular affairs outside of Canada; and (e) what impact will any changes in the projected budget for consular services have on the number of personnel working in consular affairs inside Canada?

Q-66² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s (DFAIT) recent announcement of an engagement strategy with Africa, as outlined in the department’s Report on Plans and Priorities: (a) what briefing notes has DFAIT received or produced regarding its proposed engagement with Africa; (b) what scenarios has DFAIT prepared for a Canadian role in the African continent; (c) which African countries are included in the proposed engagement strategy; (d) what is the projected cost of this engagement strategy with Africa; and (e) what is the timeline of DFAIT’s engagement strategy with Africa?

Q-67² — June 21, 2011 — — With respect to the New Veterans Charter, the tax-free, lump-sum Disability Award, and the tax-free, lump-sum Death Benefit, between April 2005 and June 2011: (a) how many recipients of the lump-sum Disability Award or the Death Benefit filed a complaint with the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) about either benefit; (b) how many Disability Award or Death Benefit files have been forwarded to the Deputy Minister or Minister of Veterans Affairs' attention; (c) what was the nature of the problems associated with each case forwarded to the Minister in (b); (d) after receiving a lump-sum payment, how many recipients or their dependants requested additional funds; (e) has VAC experienced cost savings associated with the granting of the lump-sum Disability Award and Death Benefit, as compared to other longer-term assistance measures such as, but not limited to, the disability pension and health care benefits; (f) has VAC reviewed or evaluated the lump-sum Disability Award and Death Benefit programs; and (g) what findings or conclusions have been made by any reviews or evaluations in (f)?

Q-68² — June 21, 2011 — — With respect to the lump sum disability awards under the New Veterans Charter: (a) how many eligible recipients received the maximum amount; (b) what is the percentage of eligible recipients who received less than $50,000; (c) what is the percentage of eligible recipients who received between $50,000 and $99,000; (d) what is the percentage of eligible recipients who received between $100,000 and $149,999; (e) what is the percentage of eligible recipients who received between $150,000 and $199,999; and (f) what is the percentage of eligible recipients who received between $200,000 and $249,999?

Q-69² — June 21, 2011 — — 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, on the defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit (i) from July 1, 2005, to June 1, 2011, (ii) from March 5, 2010, to June 1, 2011; (b) what is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel in its defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit (i) from July 1, 2005, to June 1, 2011, (ii) from March 5, 2010, to June 1, 2011; and (c) what is the total amount of money spent all federal departments and agencies, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, on the defence against the Canadian veterans’ Agent Orange class action lawsuit (i) from January 1, 2009, to June 1, 2011, (ii) from March 5, 2010, to June 1, 2011?

Q-70² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-71² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-72² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-73² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-74² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-75² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-76² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-77² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-78² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-79² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-80² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-81² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-82² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-83 — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to participation by the government through the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation (ECBC) in the sponsoring of a yacht in the Clipper 09-10 Round the World Yacht Race (Sponsorship Program): (a) what was the total overall budgeted cost of the Sponsorship Program, broken down by cost category including all the activities associated with the sponsorship; (b) what was the total overall actual cost of the Sponsorship Program compared to the budget; (c) what was the budget and actual cost for each trade event associated with the Sponsorship Program; (d) how many ECBC employees attended each specific international trade or non trade event as part of the Sponsorship Program; (e) how many businesses attended each trade event associated with the Sponsorship Program; (f) what was the travel cost of ECBC employees who attended the Sponsorship Program events, broken down by each event; (g) what was the cost of subsidizing non government employees to attend international Sponsorship Program events, broken down by event; (h) what were the evaluation results from non government employees who partook in the Sponsorship Program events; (i) what evaluation metrics were put in place to determine the effectiveness of the cost of the total Sponsorship Program; and (j) what evaluation results have been received to date on the effectiveness of the Sponsorship Program?

Q-84² — June 21, 2011 — — With respect to staffing at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) what is the breakdown, expressed as a percentage of the total number of VAC staff, of VAC staff who work in (i) the departmental headquarters in Ottawa, (ii) the departmental headquarters in Charlottetown, (iii) regional offices across Canada, (iv) sub-regional offices across Canada, (v) district offices across Canada; (b) what are the names and titles of departmental staff at the EX level and above in the Head Office in Ottawa; (c) what is the authorized number of employees on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB); and (d) what is the breakdown of the location of the VRAB members and employees in the various regional and district offices of VAC?

Q-85² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-86² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-87² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-88² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-89² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-90² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-91² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to oil spill clean-ups in Northern Arctic waters: (a) what dispersants does the government use or have plans to use in this process; (b) what is the quantity of the government’s stocks of these dispersants; (c) what tests has the government conducted concerning the use of these dispersants in the clean-up of an Arctic oil spill; (d) what tests has the government conducted concerning the effects of these dispersants on (i) the Arctic environment, (ii) Arctic wildlife; (e) when and by whom were the tests in (c) and (d) conducted; (f) what were the costs of the tests in (c) and (d); (g) does the government have a regimen in place for the ongoing evaluation of dispersants to be used in Arctic spills; (h) how are the dispersants which the government evaluates graded in terms of effectiveness for use in the Arctic; (i) in the event of such an occurrence, does the government have plans to use a dispersant to break up a spill at the source of the leak in Arctic waters; (j) what is the government’s assessment of the effectiveness of the use of dispersants at the source of a spill in the clean-up process; and (k) what, if any, tests has the government conducted to develop a strategy for using dispersants to break up spills at the source, and what are the costs for these tests?

Q-92² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-93² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-94² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-95² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-96² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-97² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to the government's response to Q-795 (40th Parliament, Third Session), 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-98² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-99² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-100² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-101² — June 21, 2011 — — 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?

Q-102² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-103² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-104² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-105² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-106² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-107² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to 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-108² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-109² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-110² — June 21, 2011 — — 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-111² — June 21, 2011 — — With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and promotional items: (a) broken down by fiscal year, since 2006, what was the total amount spent on CMHC branded promotional items; (b) broken down by fiscal year, since 2006, what types of CMHC branded promotional items were purchased by the CMHC; (c) broken down by fiscal year, since 2006, what was the total amount spent on each type of CMHC branded promotional item; (d) broken down by fiscal year, since 2006, what was the total volume purchased of each type of CMHC branded promotional item; and (e) what is the current inventory level of each type of CMHC promotional item?

Q-112 — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to Canadian bridges, since 2005: (a) how many incidents have there been of concrete, or other large debris, breaking and falling from bridges (i) nationally, (ii) broken down by municipality; (b) what are the details of each incident of concrete, or other large debris, breaking and falling from Canadian bridges, including (i) the size of the debris, (ii) the damages reported as a result of the falling debris, (iii) the injuries or fatalities reported, (iv) the date and location of the incident, (v) the economic impact caused by the resulting road closure; and (c) what plans does the government have to prevent future incidents of concrete falling from Canadian bridges?

Q-114² — June 22, 2011 — — 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-115² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to the government's support of social partnerships, as outlined on page 132 of Budget 2011: (a) what actions will the government take to support social partnerships in Canada and to address local issues; (b) what federal departments and stakeholders will be engaged as part of the government’s development of plans to support social partnerships; (c) what private sector stakeholders will be consulted as part of the process; and (d) how much money has been allocated for the work of the Task Force on Social Finance from April 1, 2011 through April 1, 2014?

Q-116² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to Status of Women Canada: (a) what have been the departmental budgets annually for the fiscal years 2004 to 2011, separated by program and full-time equivalents; (b) what is the planned spending for the current fiscal year through 2015-2016; (c) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition from 2004 to 2011; (d) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off from 2004 to 2011; (e) how many full-time or part-time employees have been transferred from the organisation from 2004 to 2011; (f) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired from 2004 to 2011; and (g) what is the department’s projected attrition rate over the next five years?

Q-117² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to the implementation of the Community Development program at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: (a) when does the agency plan to introduce the performance-based funding model to support Regional Economic Development Organizations (REDOs); (b) what consultations have already taken place concerning the launch of the performance-based funding model and how much money will be allocated to launch the performance-based funding model to support REDOs; (c) how much money has been allocated to provide core funding for REDOs since 2006 to date, (i) by province, (ii) by county; and (d) how much money has been allocated to provide project funding for each REDO in Atlantic Canada since 2006 to date?

Q-118² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to the implementation of the Community Development program at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: (a) how much funding was allocated to support 41 Community Business Development Corporations (CBDCs), from 2006 to date; (b) what changes will take place in the funding of CBDCs, effective April 1, 2011; and (c) how many projects were supported by each of 41 CBDCs, from 2006 to date?

Q-119² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Canada's Global Commerce Strategy: (a) what programs will be introduced by the department in 2011-2012 to support the implementation of the strategy; (b) how much money will be allocated to support the implementation of the strategy; (c) what role will be played by regional economic development agencies to support the implementation of the strategy; and (d) what are the details of any analysis conducted for the government concerning key challenges and potential risks that may impact successful implementation of the strategy?

Q-120² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to the planned reduction in human resources for Canadian Heritage listed in the 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities, which positions are being eliminated by the department as a part of this reduction, broken down by employee status, by title, and by program activity?

Q-121² — June 22, 2011 — — With respect to corporate tax revenue: (a) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues projected to be collected by the federal government in budgetary forecasting for one, two and three years in advance, broken down by year; (b) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues projected to be collected by each provincial and territorial government in budgetary forecasting for one, two and three years in advance, broken down by year and by province and territory; (c) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues actually collected by the federal government, broken down by year; (d) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues actually collected by each provincial and territorial government, broken down by year; (e) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what was the difference between projected and collected corporate tax revenues for the federal government and for each province and territory, broken down by year, and expressed as both a dollar figure and a percentage of projected revenue; (f) for the corporate tax revenue projections for the province of British Columbia for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, what adjustments were made to those projections between August 2010 and October 2010; and (g) what new information, new data, or new modeling was received or used that resulted in adjustments to the corporate tax revenue projections for the province of British Columbia between August 2010 and October 2010 for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014?

Q-122² — June 22, 2011 — — With respect to the 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 to receive 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 announced 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-123² — June 22, 2011 — — With respect to federal funding for agencies and organizations providing immigrant settlement services: (a) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total amount of federal funding allocated (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) by province and territory, (iii) by municipality, (iv) by electoral district; (b) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what is the total number of agencies and organizations that applied for federal funding (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district; (c) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total number of agencies and organizations to which federal funding was allocated (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district; (d) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total number of agencies and organizations whose applications for federal funding were rejected, (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district; (e) of those agencies receiving funding per the parameters in (c), what are all agencies that received funding in any fiscal year which was less than the total funding received by that agency in the previous fiscal year, including, for each such agency, (i) the name of the agency, (ii) the provincial, municipal and electoral disctrict location of the agency, (iii) the total amount of funding allocated to the agency in each fiscal year from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012; (f) of those agencies whose applications for funding were rejected per the parameters in (d), what are all agencies that had received funding in a previous fiscal year, including, for each such agency, (i) the name of the agency, (ii) the provincial, municipal and electoral disctrict location of the agency, (iii) the total amount of funding allocated to the agency in each fiscal year from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012; (g) what are the criteria used by the government to evaluate applications for funding by agencies and organizations providing immigrant settlement services; (h) how have the criteria listed in response to (g) changed since 2006; (i) what is the process by which applications for funding are evaluated; and (j) how has the process listed in response to (i) changed since 2006?

Q-124² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to designating Rouge Park as an urban national park: (a) what is a timeline of actions that will be taken; (b) when is the deadline to designate Rouge Park as an urban national park; (c) how much money will be spent on designating Rouge Park as an urban national park; (d) how much money will be allocated for maintenance and restoration of the ecological integrity of the park; (e) who are the regional, federal, municipal, Aboriginal and community stakeholders involved; and (f) will designating Rouge Park an urban national park create any new jobs and, if so, how many jobs will be created?

Q-125² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to Canada Student Loans and Grants: (a) how many Grants for Students from Low Income Families were awarded in each fiscal year, from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011; (b) how many Grants for Students from Middle Income Families were awarded in each fiscal year, from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011; (c) what measurement does HRSDC use to determine low income threshold; (d) what measurement does HRSDC use to determine middle income threshold; (e) what are the ethnoracial demographics of recipients of Grants for Students from Low Income Families; (f) what are the ethnoracial demographics of recipients of Grants for Students from Middle Income Families; (g) of the students who apply for Canada Student Loans and Grants, how many do not qualify for Grants for Students from Low Income Families; (h) of the students who apply for Canada Student Loans and Grants, how many do not qualify for Grants for Students from Middle Income Families; (i) what are the ethnoracial demographics of applicants who do not qualify for Grants for Students from Low Income Families; and (j) what are the ethnoracial demographics of applicants who do not qualify for Grants for Students from Middle Income Families?

Q-126² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to Family Class applications to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC): (a) broken down by visa office, how many applications have exceeded the processing times listed by CIC’s visa offices in each fiscal year, from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011; (b) what is the total volume of correspondence received by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration about shortening the processing times for family sponsorship applications in each fiscal year, from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011; (c) broken down by visa office, how many officers work on family sponsorship applications; (d) in each fiscal year, from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, broken down by visa office, (i) how many family sponsorship applications were received, (ii) how many family sponsorship application were denied, (iii) how many family sponsorship applications were approved; (e) what are the five most common reasons for denials in (d)(iii); (f) of the number of applications denied, how many applicants subsequently appealed the decision to the Immigration Appeal Division; and (g) how many applications refused by CIC were given a positive decision by the Immigration Appeals Division?

Q-127² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to the VIA Rail Guildwood Station: (a) what is the status on the decision to cut services; (b) when will this decision be made; (c) how many passengers frequent Guildwood station daily; (d) how many people are employed at Guildwood Station; (e) what criteria are being examined in the review of efficiencies in the passenger rail network; and (f) what is the government’s reason for considering to cut services at Guildwood Station?

Q-128² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to the Gander Weather Office: (a) what, if any, changes in staffing and mandate or responsibilities have been made within the Gander Weather Office since 2006; and (b) how many employees currently work at the Gander Weather Office and are they responsible for public, marine or aviation forecasting?

Q-129² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to visa holders, for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2010-2011, expressed as both a raw number and a percentage of total visas issued, what is the total number of instances of visa holders overstaying the length of their temporary residence visa, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by country of origin of the visa holder, (iii) broken down by issuing visa office?

Q-130² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to applications under the Investment Canada Act, for the period January 1, 2006 to May 31, 2011: (a) how many applications were approved by the government; (b) how many applications were rejected; (c) what measures are in place to ensure that investors live up to undertakings they made to gain approval under the Act; and (d) how many times has the government withdrawn approval as a result of an investor’s failure to live up to those undertakings?

Q-131² — June 22, 2011 — — With regard to information supplied in 2009 by the Government of France to the Government of Canada regarding secret bank accounts in Switzerland: (a) how many Canadians have been identified as having undeclared bank accounts outside of Canada; (b) what action, if any, has been taken by Canadian officials to recover unpaid taxes associated with Canadians' undeclared bank accounts outside of Canada; (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 outside of Canada (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 was collected from the cases in (j) (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 (i) what was the largest amount, (ii) what was the smallest amount, (iii) what was the average amount; (n) of the amounts of money contained in the secret accounts declared or discovered by CRA (i) what was the largest amount, (ii) what was the smallest amount, (iii) what was the average amount; (o) on what date did the CRA become aware of the names of Canadians with accounts outside of Canada that were obtained by the Government of France; (p) on what dates did CRA begin its investigations; (q) on what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin; (r) how many of the identified Canadians with bank accounts outside of Canada (i) have had their account(s) audited, (ii) have had their account(s) reassessed, (iii) have been the subject of a compliance action; (s) how many of the identified Canadians with bank accounts outside of Canada (i) have not had their account(s) audited, (ii) have not had their account(s) reassessed, (iii) have not been the subject of a compliance action; (t) how many tax evasion charges were laid; and (u) has the Government of Canada made any changes to the VDP in the past 24 months?

Q-132² — September 15, 2011 — — With regard to Environment Canada and the oil and gas sector in Canada: (a) what does Environment Canada’s economic modelling show about the effect of a carbon price on natural gas consumption in Canada, relative to business as usual; (b) has Environment Canada performed any assessment or updating of its methane emission factors for natural gas extraction, processing, transmission and distribution, (i) what is the source of the emission factors it is currently using; (c) has Environment Canada performed any analysis on whether to include oil and gas wells in the National Pollutant Release Inventory such that the composition and volume of fracking fluids would be publicly reported; (d) what recent analysis has Environment Canada performed concerning the structure and use of groundwater resources in Canada; (e) what analysis, if any, has Environment Canada performed concerning the effect of natural gas prices on potential shale gas expansion; (f) what analysis has Environment Canada done concerning the cumulative impacts of natural gas development on Canada’s natural environment; (g) what analysis has Environment Canada done concerning the cost per tonne of carbon capture and storage for natural gas processing plants; (h) what analysis has Environment Canada done of changes to disclosure rules concerning gas development in other jurisdictions, and what is Environment Canada's position on those proposals; (i) what analysis has Environment Canada done of “pauses” or moratoria on gas development in other jurisdictions, and what is Environment Canada's position on those proposals; and (j) what analysis, if any, has Environment Canada done on the role of switching to natural gas in reaching Canada’s 2020 greenhouse gas emission target?

Q-133² — September 15, 2011 — — With regard to Table 2-16 in the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Inventory produced by Environment Canada and submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: (a) what are the corresponding sector by sector greenhouse gas emission figures for 2009; (b) has the government revised any of the greenhouse gas emissions estimates from the years included in the above-mentioned Table 2-16, and if so why; and (c) do the oil sands sector figures reported for each year included in the above-mentioned Table 2-16 include the indirect emissions resulting from the electricity used in oil sands facilities, transportation of the oil, refining, and from any associated land use changes or deforestation, and if they are not included (i) why are they not included, (ii) what is the government’s estimate for what they would be?

Q-134² — September 15, 2011 — — With regard to the exterior light fixtures controlled or owned by the departments and agencies of the government: (a) what is the total wattage of these fixtures; and (b) what is the government's position on the use of light-emitting diode (LED) technology for the exterior light fixtures controlled or owned by the departments and agencies of the government, as a means of achieving energy and maintenance savings, as well a reduction in CO₂ emissions?

Q-135² — September 15, 2011 — — With respect to the business-as-usual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission projections for Canada, last published in 2008: (a) what are the government's 2011 GHG emission projections for the years 2015 and 2020, disaggregated by source of emission and by sector, including, with respect to the oilsands sector, the GHG emissions related to in-situ bitumen mining, bitumen mining and upgrading; and (b) what are macroeconomics assumptions, data on demand by industry for electricity and energy, petroleum supply and distribution, natural gas supply and disposition, conversion and emission factors and other assumptions that these business-as-usual GHG emissions projections are based upon?

Q-136² — September 15, 2011 — — With regard to Natural Resources Canada and the oil and gas sector in Canada: (a) what does Natural Resources Canada’s economic modelling show about the effect of a carbon price on natural gas consumption in Canada, relative to business as usual; (b) what recent analysis has Natural Resources Canada performed concerning the structure and use of groundwater resources in Canada; (c) what analysis, if any, has Natural Resources Canada performed concerning the effect of natural gas prices on potential shale gas expansion; (d) what analysis has Natural Resources Canada done concerning the cost per tonne of carbon capture and storage for natural gas processing plants; (e) what analysis has Natural Resources Canada done of changes to disclosure rules concerning gas development in other jurisdictions, and what is Natural Resources Canada's position on those proposals; (f) what analysis has Natural Resources Canada done of “pauses” or moratoria on gas development in other jurisdictions, and what is Natural Resources Canada's position on those proposals; and (g) what analysis, if any, has Natural Resources Canada done on the role of switching to natural gas in reaching Canada’s 2020 greenhouse gas emission target?

Q-137² — September 15, 2011 — — With regard to recommendation number seven of the Report of the Standing Committee on Health, tabled on June 17, 2010, titled “Promoting Innovative Solutions to Health Human Resources Challenges”: (a) what is the government’s position with respect to physiotherapy as a method to reduce health care spending while increasing the capacity of Canadian physicians; (b) what is the government’s position with respect to a pan-Canadian increase in direct access to physiotherapy services without gate-keeper consultation from physicians; (c) what is the Treasury Board’s position with respect to allowing employees of the federal public service and members of the federal client groups, including, First Nations and Inuit, RCMP, veterans, immigrants and refugees, federal inmates, and members of the Canadian Forces, to have direct access to physiotherapists, without gate-keeper consultation from physicians?

Q-138² — September 15, 2011 — — With regard to the constitutional provision that each of the 24 Senators appointed to represent the province of Quebec “shall be appointed for One of the Twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A to Chapter One of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada”, what is: (a) the total population of each of these 24 electoral divisions; (b) the geographic size in square kilometres of each of these 24 divisions; (c) the name and population of the largest urban centre in each of these divisions; and (d) the population, geographic size in square kilometres, and name and population of the largest urban centre of the area in the province of Quebec that is not covered by any division?

Q-139² — September 15, 2011 — — What is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, identifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?


¹ Requires Oral Answer ² Response requested within 45 days