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, January 25, 2016 (No. 8)

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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.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 — December 7, 2015 — — With regard to refugee processing in Canada: (a) how many government-assisted Syrian refugees have been resettled in Canada since January 1, 2015, in total, broken down by (i) month; (b) how many applications for private sponsorship of Syrian refugees have been received since July 2013, in total, broken down by (i) year; (c) how many applications for privately-sponsored Syrian refugees have been received since January 1, 2015, broken down by (i) month; (d) how many applications for privately-sponsored Syrian refugees have been accepted since January 1, 2015, in total, broken down by (i) month; (e) how many privately-sponsored Syrian refugees have arrived in Canada since January 1, 2015, in total, broken down by (i) month; (f) what was the average processing time in 2014 for applications for privately-sponsored Syrian refugees; (g) what was the average processing time in 2015 for applications for privately-sponsored Syrian refugees, broken down by month; (h) how many Syrian refugees have made inland claims for refugee status at the Immigration and Refugee Board since July 2013, in total, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month; (i) how many Syrian refugees have received a positive decision at the Immigration and Refugee Board since July 2013, in total, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month; (j) how many applications for private sponsorship of Syrian refugees are currently waiting to be processed; (k) what criteria has the government enumerated for prioritizing resettlement on the basis of religion or ethnicity; (l) what instructions have been given to processing officers regarding religion or ethnicity of Syrian refugees; (m) what is the projected budget for the government’s resettling of 25 000 government-assisted Syrian refugees, in total, broken down by (i) program, (ii) year; (n) what is the projected budget for the processing and transport of privately-sponsored Syrian refugees, in total, broken down by (i) program, (ii) year; (o) over the next two years, how many Syrian refugees does the government plan to resettle each year, in total, broken down by (i) government-assisted refugees, (ii) privately-sponsored refugees; (p) how many government-assisted Iraqi refugees have been resettled in Canada since January 1, 2015, in total, broken down by (i) month; (q) how many applications for private sponsorship of Iraqi refugees have been received since July 2013, in total, broken down by (i) year; (r) how many applications for privately-sponsored Iraqi refugees have been received since January 1, 2015, broken down by month; (s) how many applications for privately-sponsored Iraqi refugees have been accepted since January 1, 2015, in total, broken down by (i) month; (t) how many privately-sponsored Iraqi refugees have arrived in Canada since January 1, 2015, in total, broken down by (i) month; (u) how many Iraqi refugees have made inland claims for refugee status at the Immigration and Refugee Board since July 2013, in total, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month; (v) how many Iraqi refugees have received a positive decision at the Immigration and Refugee Board since July 2013, in total, broken down by (i) year, (ii) month; (w) how many applications for private sponsorship of Iraqi refugees are currently waiting to be processed; (x) over the next two years, how many Iraqi refugees does the government plan to resettle each year, in total, broken down by (i) government-assisted, (ii) privately-sponsored; (y) what was the average processing time for all refugee applications in 2014 and 2015, in total, broken down by (i) year, (ii) processing centre, (iii) government-assisted refugees, (iv) privately-sponsored refugees; (z) how many refugees has Canada accepted in 2013 and 2014, in total, broken down by (i) country of origin, (ii) year; and (aa) how many total refugees does Canada intend to resettle in 2016?

Q-2² — December 7, 2015 — — With regard to the International Mobility Program: (a) how many applications were received for work permits in 2015, broken down by (i) total, (ii) month; (b) how many applications for work permits were approved in 2015, broken down by (i) total, (ii) month; (c) how many employers using the International Mobility Program have been subject to an investigation for compliance in 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (d) how many investigations have revealed non-compliance by employers, broken down by (i) month, (ii) issues identified, (iii) industry of the employer; (e) how many employers have had to take steps to be considered compliant following an investigation, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of actions required, (iii) industry of the employer; (f) how many employers have received penalties for non-compliance as a result of an investigation, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of penalty, (iii) industry of the employer; (g) how many investigations have involved an on-site visit, broken down by month; and (h) how many Citizenship and Immigration Canada staff are currently assigned to conduct investigations for compliance?

Q-3² — December 7, 2015 — — With regard to applications to Citizenship and Immigration Canada: (a) how many applications for permanent residence are currently waiting to be processed, broken down by (i) total number, (ii) parents and grandparents, (iii) spouse, common-law partner or dependent child, (iv) Federal Skilled Workers pre-2008, (v) Federal Skilled Workers post-2008, (vi) Provincial Nominees, (vii) Investors, (viii) Entrepreneurs, (ix) Start-Up Visa, (x) Self-Employed Persons, (xi) Canadian Experience Class, (xii) Live-in Caregivers, (xiii) humanitarian and compassionate; (b) how many applications for citizenship are currently waiting to be processed; (c) how many applications have been received to the Express Entry pool; (d) how many Express Entry applicants have been invited to submit an application for permanent residence; (e) how many draws have there been for Express Entry and what has been the cut-off point for each Express Entry draw; (f) what has been the point cut-off for each Express Entry draw; and (g) how many refugee applications are currently waiting to be processed, not including applications from Syrian refugees?

Q-4² — December 7, 2015 — — With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada and the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section (ISS), broken down by (i) total, (ii) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (iii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iv) Old Age Security; (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in person in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) are currently assigned to the ISS; (k) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (l) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (m) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (o) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (p) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (t) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (u) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS in 2015, broken down by (i) total, (ii) month; (v) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed in 2015; (w) how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed in 2015; (x) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed in 2015; (y) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (dd) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD in 2015; (ee) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2015; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2015; (gg) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2015; (hh) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (nn) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (oo) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness in 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship in 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted; (rr) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ss) how many casefiles have been reviewed by the special unit created within the department to review backlogged social security appeals; (tt) how many settlements have been offered; (uu) how many settlements have been accepted; (vv) how much has been spent on the special unit within the department; (ww) what is the expected end date for the special unit within the department; (xx) for 2014 and 2015, what is the average amount of time for the Department to reach a decision on an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month; and (yy) for 2014 and 2015, what is the average amount of time for the Department to reach a decision on a reconsideration of an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month?

Q-5² — December 8, 2015 — — With regard to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: (a) how many long-term operating agreements for social housing units are currently in existence, broken down by province; (b) for each agreement, (i) what is the name of the agreement holder, (ii) when does the agreement expire; and (c) since 1995, how many long-term operating agreements have expired, broken down by year?

Q-6² — December 8, 2015 — — With regard to government funding allocated to the constituency of Hochelaga for each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2015-2016: (a) what is the total amount of funding per (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) all other government bodies, (iv) program; and (b) how many jobs is this funding directly responsible for, broken down by (i) full-time positions, (ii) part-time positions?

Q-7² — December 8, 2015 — — With regard to federal funding for scientific research and the mandate letter for the Minister of Science: (a) for each fiscal year since 2005-2006, what was the government’s total financial support for “fundamental research to support new discoveries,” broken down by department or agency; (b) what performance measures or indicators is the government using to examine and evaluate “options to strengthen the recognition of, and support for, fundamental research to support new discoveries”; (c) what is the complete and detailed list of all research programs or facilities whose federal funding was decreased or eliminated since February 6, 2006; (d) for each research program or facility in (c), (i) was it intramural or extramural, (ii) by what dollar amount was its funding decreased, (iii) what percentage of its total funding did this decrease represent, (iv) on what dates was its funding decreased, (v) was it required to close or shut-down as a result; and (e) for each research program or facility in (c), will the current government restore its funding to previous levels?

Q-8² — December 8, 2015 — — With regard to Statistics Canada: (a) what is the complete and detailed list of all surveys, data products, tables, and publications whose collection, measurement, or reporting was discontinued between February 6, 2006, and November 4, 2015; (b) for each item listed in (a), (i) on what date was it first established, (ii) on what date was it discontinued, (iii) what was the rationale for its discontinuation, (iv) by what process was this decision reached, (v) how many Canadians had been accessing its data on an annual basis, (vi) what was the cost-savings from its discontinuation; and (c) is it the current government's policy to reinstate its collection, measurement, or reporting?

Q-9² — December 8, 2015 — — With regard to the National Research Council (NRC): (a) of the $67 million allocated in Budget 2012 to “support the National Research Council in refocusing on business-led, industry-relevant research,” what are the details about the money spent, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) organizational priority, (iii) strategic outcome, (iv) program; (b) of the $121 million allocated in Budget 2013 to “invest in the National Research Council’s strategic focus to help the growth of innovative businesses in Canada,” what is the complete and detailed accounting of how this money was spent, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) organizational priority, (iii) strategic outcome, (iv) program; (c) of the $119.2 million allocated in Budget 2015 to “support the industry-partnered research and development activities of the National Research Council,” what is the complete and detailed accounting of how this money was spent, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) organizational priority, (iii) strategic outcome, (iv) program; (d) for each year since 2011, what performance measures or indicators has the government used to track and evaluate the effectiveness of NRC programs; (e) for each performance measure or indicator in (d), what was its target value during each year since 2011, broken down by program; (f) for each performance measure or indicator in (d), what was its actual reported value during each year since 2011, broken down by program; (g) for each year since 2011, what was the NRC’s target for staff utilization on programs, comparing total hours worked on projects to total hours paid, broken down by (i) division and (ii) portfolio; (h) for each year since 2011, what was the NRC’s actual staff utilization on programs, comparing total hours worked on projects to total hours paid, broken down by (i) division and (ii) portfolio; (i) for each year since 2011, what was the NRC’s number of projects delivered on, under or over budget, comparing planned to actual costs, broken down by (i) division and (ii) portfolio; (j) for each year since 2011, what was the NRC’s utilization of equipment, facilities, and services, comparing practical capacity to actual use, broken down by (i) division, (ii) portfolio; (k) for each year since 2005, how many peer-reviewed publications have NRC researchers published; (l) for each year since 2005, how many patents have NRC researchers produced; (m) for each year since 2005, what has been the NRC’s licensing and royalty revenue from clients; (n) what has been the annual cost of the NRC’s Concierge Service for each year since it was launched; (o) how many small and medium-sized enterprises have accessed the NRC’s Concierge Service during each year since it was launched; (p) of the small and medium-sized enterprises in (o), (i) how many have invested in technology deployment as a result of accessing the NRC’s Concierge Service, (ii) what has been the dollar value of these investments for each company, and (iii) how much private-sector jobs did these investments create; (q) for each year since 2005, what was the NRC’s total expenditures on fundamental or basic research; (r) for each year since 2005, what was the NRC’s total number of full-time equivalent staff supporting fundamental or basic research; and (s) what is the current government’s position with respect to the reforms undertaken since 2013 to refocus the NRC into an industry-focused, research and technology organization?

Q-10² — December 9, 2015 — — With regard to Service Canada, Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan call centres for 2015, year-to-date: (a) what was the volume of calls, broken down by (i) Canadian region, (ii) province, (iii) month; (b) what was the number of calls that received a high volume message, broken down by (i) Canadian region, (ii) province, (iii) month; (c) what were the Service Level standards achieved for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) Canadian region, (ii) province, (iii) month; (d) what were the service standards for call-backs; (e) what were the service standards achieved for call-backs broken down by (i) Canadian region, (ii) province, (iii) month; (f) what was the average number of days for a call-back by an agent, broken down by (i) Canadian region, (ii) province, (iii) month; (g) what was the number and percentage of term employees, and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) Canadian region, (ii) province, (iii) month; (h) what is the rate of sick leave use among call centre employees, broken down by month; (i) what is the number of call centre employees on long term disability; and (j) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by month?

Q-11² — December 9, 2015 — — With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS) in fiscal year 2014-2015: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each of the following components of the FTCS, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Aboriginals of Canada; and (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities?

Q-12² — December 9, 2015 — — With regard to the Copyright Board of Canada, as of December 10, 2015: (a) how many people are employed by the Board, broken down by Treasury Board classification group; (b) is the working committee on its operations, procedures, and processes, that was tasked with examining possible improvements to the Board’s current practices and procedures with a view to reducing uncertainty and streamlining the processes, still active; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, when does it expect to complete its work, (i) what are its preliminary recommendations, (ii) which persons or organizations within the government were consulted in this regard, (iii) was an outside consultant hired, (iv) if so, at what cost as of December 10, 2015; (d) if the answer to (b) is negative, (i) what are its final recommendations, (ii) which persons or organizations within the government were consulted in this regard, (iii) was an outside consultant hired, (iv) if so, at what final cost, (v) when does the government plan to implement the working committee’s recommendations; (e) was the Minister of Industry's office consulted by this working committee, (i) if so, how many times, (ii) which office members were contacted with the respective contact dates; and (f) has the appeal of the “Tariff 8” decision of June 2014 by Re:Sound been heard, (i) if so, what was the court’s decision, (ii) if not, when is the appeal scheduled to be heard?

Q-13² — December 9, 2015 — — With regard to the Canadian Museum of History: (a) as part of the transformation of the former Canadian Museum of Civilizations into the Canadian Museum of History, (i) what are the objectives, phases and components planned by this transformation since 2011 in terms of renovations, rebranding, changes to exhibits, the creation of new exhibits including the Canadian History Hall and their subcomponents, (ii) what was the original schedule for these objectives, phases, components and subcomponents, (iii) what is the schedule for the completed objectives, phases, components and subcomponents, with regard to the completion dates, (iv) what is the current projected schedule for the objectives, phases, components and subcomponents to be completed, (v) what were the originally projected costs for the objectives, phases, components and subcomponents, (vi) what are the costs incurred to date, broken down by objective, phase, component or subcomponent, (vii) what are the currently projected additional costs, broken down by objective, phase, component or subcomponent; (b) since 2012, what amounts from the private, corporate or community sector, whether they be sponsors, partners or corporate donors, have been received by the Museum, (i) to which exhibits, services or objectives were these amounts allocated, with these amounts broken down by amount donor; (c) since 2012, what is the nature of each service contract used by the Museum for services that used to be performed by Museum employees before 2012, (d) how many employees, permanent or on contract, have been assigned to research duties, particularly in the Research Division, their numbers broken down (i) by year since 2012-2013, (ii) by position, (iii) by scientific field, (iv) by division; (e) since 2012-2013, what meetings, telephone calls, museum visits and any other contact have taken place between museum representatives and members of ministers’ offices or representatives from their respective offices, including the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Prime Minister’s Office, broken down by meeting subject; (f) for all exhibitions since 2012, by exhibition, what was (i) the total number of visitors, (ii) the total revenue amount, (iii) the budget at the start of planning stage, (iv) total expenditures; (g) since 2012-2013, (i) what were the museum’s annual revenues, (ii) what are the museum’s projected annual revenues for the next five years, (h) excluding the Canadian War Museum, what is the total number of visitors expected each year at the museum over the next five years; (i) since 2012, which groups such as associations, professional associations, groups representing First Nations and experts were met with and consulted as part of creating the content for the new Museum, particularly with regard to the Canadian History Hall; (j) regarding the costs related to changing the museum’s name such as signage, logos and branding, (i) what is the current budget set aside for these costs, (ii) what is the total projected cost over the next five years; (k) since 2012-2013, what is the museum’s total cost of advertising such as billboard advertising and advertising in newspapers, on the radio, on television and on the Internet, (i) by year, (ii) by type of advertising; (l) for each instance when external legal services were provided to the museum over the past three years (i) which firms or individuals provided these legal services to the museum, (ii) when, (iii) for how long, (iv) what was the nature of these services, (v) what was the purpose of these services, (vi) what was the total cost, per instance, of these services provided to the museum; and (m) for each project or exhibition created by the museum or for those since 2012-2013 that were not presented within the museum building, (i) what was the subject, (ii) where was the project or exhibition presented, (iii) what was the total cost for each project or exhibition?

Q-14² — December 9, 2015 — — With regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), as of December 10, 2015: (a) has the Governor in Council given its approval for moving the Maison de Radio-Canada (MRC) building in Montreal, which must be approved by the Governor in Council in accordance with section 48(2) of the Broadcasting Act and from which real property transactions may arise; (b) what were the project specifications given to the firm Avison Young regarding the possible options for moving the MRC into leased space in Montreal, (i) how much did the CBC pay to the firm Avison Young to carry out this project, (ii) what were the eight options considered in carrying out this project, (iii) what was the estimated leasing and maintenance costs for each of these eight options, (iv) was the Department of Heritage made aware of these eight options, (v) was the Treasury Board Secretariat made aware of these eight options, (vi) was the Canada Lands Company (CLC) made aware of these eight options and, if not, for which reasons; (c) what were the criteria and technical specifications that the CBC provided to the firm Avison Young concerning the desired features of the new MRC; (d) what has been the CBC’s comparative cost-benefit analysis for the various projects considered by the CBC such as leasing new space downtown, partially renovating the existing MRC, or constructing smaller space on the current MRC grounds, for each aspect of the project, namely (i) design, (ii) financing, (iii) construction, (iv) rental, (v) maintenance, (vi) management; (e) which experts and professional associations did the CBC consult with respect to this real property transaction; (f) what are the maintenance costs for the Maison de Radio-Canada in Montreal for the year 2014-2015, broken down by (i) mortgage, (ii) property taxes, (iii) maintenance, (iv) renovations; (g) what is the CBC’s inventory of photo archives, broken down by city; (h) what is the total value of the CBC’s photo archives; (i) what is the CBC’s inventory of audio archives, broken down by city; (j) what is the total value of the CBC’s audio archives; (k) what is the CBC’s inventory of video archives, broken down by city; (l) what is the total value of the CBC’s video archives; (m) what is the inventory of paper-based archives (such as books and music scores) held by the CBC, broken down by city; (n) what is the total value of these paper-based archives; (o) what is the CBC’s inventory of technical equipment, broken down by city; (p) what is the total value of this technical equipment; and (q) who are the bidders who acquired CBC assets since January 1, 2008, broken down by (i) year, (ii) type of asset purchased, (iii) transaction value?

Q-15² — December 9, 2015 — — With regard to thalidomide: (a) how many tax-free pensions are being awarded at the level of (i) $100 000, (ii) $75 000, (iii) $25 000; (b) how many recipients have asked for a reassessment of their benefit level, in total, and broken down by (i) applications approved, (ii) applications denied; (c) how many applications have been received for assistance from the Extraordinary Medical Assistance Fund, in total, and broken down by (i) applications approved, (ii) applications denied; (d) what are the criteria for receiving assistance from the Extraordinary Medical Assistance Fund; (e) who is responsible for administering the Extraordinary Medical Assistance Fund; (f) how many new individuals have identified themselves as thalidomide survivors; and (g) how many new individuals have been accepted as thalidomide survivors and will begin receiving support payments?

Q-16² — December 9, 2015 — — With regard to Health Canada, for the last ten years: (a) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected in Canada have received a “proposal to suspend” letter, broken down by year; (b) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected in Canada have received an “immediate suspension”, broken down by year; (c) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected in Canada that were not sent a proposal to suspend letter or were not subject to a suspension has Health Canada worked with following an inspection to bring about compliance, broken down by year; (d) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected in Canada have been subject to a re-inspection within six months, broken down by year; (e) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have received a “proposal to suspend” letter, broken down by year; (f) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have received an “immediate suspension,” broken down by year; (g) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally that were not sent a proposal to suspend letter or were not subject to a suspension has Health Canada worked with following an inspection to bring about compliance, broken down by year; (h) how many pharmaceutical manufacturing companies inspected internationally have been subject to a re-inspection within six months, broken down by year; (i) how many import alerts has Health Canada issued with regard to non-compliant health products, broken down by year; (j) which companies have been subject to an import alert; (k) how many voluntary quarantine requests has Health Canada issued, broken down by year; (l) which companies have been subject to a voluntary quarantine request; (m) how many “Notice of Intent to Suspend” letters have been issued to clinical trials, broken down by year; (n) how many “immediate suspensions” has Health Canada issued to clinical trials, broken down by year; (o) how many complaints have been received regarding off-label prescriptions of drugs, broken down by year; and (p) how many cases has Health Canada referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for off-label prescriptions of drugs?

Q-17² — December 9, 2015 — — With regard to the mandate letter of the Minister of Natural Resources, the National Energy Board (NEB) review process, and Kinder Morgan’s current application to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline: (a) what “new, fair processes” will Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain application be subject in order to: (i) “restore robust oversight and thorough environmental assessments”, (ii) “ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence”, (iii) ensure that decisions “serve the public’s interest”, (iv) “provide ways for Canadians to express their views”, (v) provide “opportunities for experts to meaningfully participate”, (vi) “enhance the engagement of indigenous groups in reviewing and monitoring major resource development projects”, (vii) “require pipeline proponents to choose the best technologies available to reduce environmental impacts”; (b) will the deadline for the NEB to issue its recommendations on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain application be extended as a result; (c) will Canadians who were previously rejected by the NEB to be public commentators or intervenors on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain application be given an opportunity to re-apply; (d) will the new review process take into account the potential climate change impacts of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion; (e) will the new review process take into account the economic consequences of the recent decrease in oil prices on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion; and (f) will the new review process maintain the Minister’s power under the National Energy Board Act to overrule the final recommendations of the NEB as to whether Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion should be approved and the terms and conditions that would apply to the project?

Q-18² — December 10, 2015 — — With regard to Operation PROVISION and the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) support to the government's initiative to resettle 25 000 Syrian Refugees in Canada by the end of February 2016, including the use of CAF bases to do so: (a) which bases will be used; (b) what is the expected number of refugees that will utilize each base for lodging; (c) how many CAF and Department of National Defence personnel had to leave their living quarters from each base to accommodate the incoming refugees; (d) at each base, what type of construction, renovation, or winterization projects had to be completed in order to accommodate the incoming refugees; (e) what are the individual costs of the projects identified in (b); (f) were all Treasury Board guidelines followed for the tendering and awarding of these contracts; (g) from where are the funds necessary to accommodate refugees on CAF bases being allocated; (h) how many troops and personnel will be deployed as a part of Operation PROVISION and to where will they be deployed; (i) in what type of work will they be engaged while overseas; (j) will they be deployed as civilian or military personnel; (k) will the CAF be providing force protection for the troops deployed as a part Operation PROVISION; (l) if the answer to (k) is negative, who will be providing the force protection and what price; and (m) will the government table a copy in the House of any force protection contracts that it has signed as part of Operation PROVISION?

Q-19² — December 10, 2015 — — With regard to the government’s Syrian refugee resettlement initiative, including, but not limited to the measures announced by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on November 24, 2015: (a) what is the total number of existing Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) visa officers and other CIC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), who have been re-assigned since November 4, 2015, from processing applications under other streams or “lines of business” to enhance the processing capacity of Syrian refugee applications, broken down by employees re-assigned from processing (i) spousal sponsorship applications, (ii) economic immigration permanent resident visas, (iii) work permit applications, (iv) student visa applications, (v) all other streams, identifying the stream in question; (b) what was the total number of CIC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), including visa officers, responsible for processing Syrian refugee applications on November 4, 2015; (c) what is the total number of CIC employees, whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), including visa officers, who were responsible for processing Syrian refugee applications on December 10, 2015; (d) what is the anticipated operational impact, expressed in additional application processing time, for each CIC “line of business,” caused by the re-allocation of CIC employee resources to enhance the processing of Syrian refugee applications; (e) what is the total number of cases that were finalized for each week in the 2015 calendar year, up to and including December 10, 2015, for each permanent and temporary resident visa category, broken down by (i) outcome (i.e. “approved,” “refused,” or “withdrawn”), (ii) CIC Visa Office or CIC Processing Office; (f) what is the total number of Syrian refugee applications, broken down by sponsorship category (e.g. Government Sponsored Refugees, Privately Sponsored Refugees, Group of Five, etc.), finalized on or after November 5, 2015; and (g) of the total number Syrian refugee applications that were finalized on or after November 5, 2015, how many applications were referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, or the Canada Border Services Agency, prior to the visa officer’s decision to either grant or refuse a permanent resident visa, for a (i) record check, (ii) comprehensive security vetting?

Q-20² — December 10, 2015 — — With regards to the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to “[a]ct on recommendations of the Cohen Commission on restoring sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River”: (a) what scientific analyses were completed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on each of the 75 recommendations contained in the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River; (b) what recommendations identified in (a) have been implemented in whole or in part; (c) of the recommendations identified in (b) what was the cost of implementation, both on a one-time and ongoing basis; and (d) when will the remaining recommendations of the Cohen Commission, in whole or in part, be implemented?

Q-21² — December 10, 2015 — — With regard to the province of Saskatchewan, since November 4, 2015: what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded by the government, broken down by (i) recipient, (ii) constituency, (iii) amount?

Q-22² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to funding for women’s shelters for the fiscal years from 2010 to 2015: (a) how much money has the government spent on funding for construction of new women’s shelters and new women’s shelters spaces annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (b) how much money has the government spent on funding for renovation of existing women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (c) how much money has the government spent on non-capital supports for women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (d) when did the government stop accepting applications for the off-reserve portion of the Shelter Enhancement Program; and (e) when did the government cancel funding for the off-reserve portion of the Shelter Enhancement Program?

Q-23² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to the total expenditures of the government incurred by all departments defending against Aboriginal rights claims made against the government a and appealing against case decisions upholding Aboriginal rights in court: (a) what was the amount spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; (b) what was the amount spent on these activities to date in the current fiscal year; (c) what was the actual amount budgeted to be spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; and (d) what was the actual amount budgeted to be spent on these activities for the current fiscal year?

Q-24² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to changes to the machinery of government made on November 4, 2016: (a) for each department that was changed, what is the cost of making those changes (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category of expense; and (b) for each agency, Crown corporation, board, commission, or foundation that has been placed under the authority of a different ministry than was the case in the previous administration, what is the cost of making that change (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category?

Q-25² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for 2015: (a) what was the volume of EI applications in total and broken down by (i) region and province where the claim originated, (ii) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (iii) month; (b) what was the average EI application processing time in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by month; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (h) what were the service standards for call-backs from EI processing staff, broken down by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI processing staff for call-backs, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (j) what was the average number of days for a call-back by EI processing staff, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (k) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, working at EI call centres and processing centres; (l) what was the rate of sick-leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees; (m) what was the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long-term disability; (n) what was the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees; (o) who authored the report on EI processing for which the former parliamentary secretary for Employment and Social Development was credited; (p) what is the table of contents for the report; (q) will the government make the report public; (r) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province where the complaint originated; (s) how long on average did a complaint take to be investigated and resolved, broken down by month; and (t) what were the major themes of the complaints received?

Q-26² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI): (a) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the EI Commission in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013, (v) 2014; (b) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the EI Boards of Referees in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (c) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by EI Umpires in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (d) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Social Security Tribunal in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (e) how much money has the government spent on the class-action court case regarding women who were denied sickness benefits while on parental leave; (f) how many Justice Department lawyers have been working on the class-action court case; and (g) what was the average cost for an appeal to be considered by the EI Commission, a Board of Referees, and an EI Umpire?

Q-27² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) how many applications were received for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (b) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (c) what was the average processing time for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) National Occupational Classification (NOC) code; (d) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for high-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (e) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (f) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for high-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (g) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (h) since June 2014, how many employers with fewer than 10 employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, broken down by year; (i) since June 2014, how many employers with more than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, broken down by year; (j) how many work permits have been issued in 2015, in total and broken down by month; (k) how many tips have been received on the confidential tip phone line since its creation, broken down by month; (l) how many tips have been received through the online tip portal since its creation, broken down by month; (m) how many investigations have been conducted as a result of tips received; (n) how many investigations have been the result of multiple tips; (o) how many investigations have resulted in employers being found non-compliant; (p) how many investigations have resulted in penalties being imposed on the employer; (q) how many employers have been required to take corrective action in order to be found compliant as a result of an investigation; (r) how many employers using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program have been subject to an inspection from 2013 to 2015 inclusively, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (s) how many inspections were conducted because an employer requested a new Labour Market Opinion or Labour Market Impact Assessment between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (t) how many inspections occurred at a time when the employer was not requesting a new Labour Market Opinion or Labour Market Impact Assessment between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (u) how many inspections have revealed non-compliance by employers between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) issue(s) identified, (iii) industry of the employer; (v) how many employers have had to take steps to be considered compliant between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of action(s) required, (iii) industry of the employer; (w) how many employers have received penalties for non-compliance as a result of an inspection between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of penalty, (iii) industry of the employer; (x) how many inspections conducted between 2013 and 2015 have involved an on-site visit, broken down by month; (y) how many foreign nationals have been removed from Canada because their four-year period of eligibility had expired; and (z) when will Employment and Social Development Canada begin publicly reporting data on the number of temporary foreign workers approved and the names of employers receiving positive Labour Market Impact Assessments?

Q-28² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to Canada's delegation at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP21): (a) what is the total cost incurred by the government for this delegation; (b) what are the details of the expenses incurred by each delegate; and (c) what are the costs of the delegation broken down by (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, (iii) meals and incidentials, (iv) lodging, (v) salaries, (vi) per diems, (vii) operations?

Q-29² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities’ mandate letter and the government’s announcement on November 18, 2015, that municipal and provincial governments will no longer have to apply for P3 screening for infrastructure projects worth greater than $100 million: (a) how many projects were in line for P3 funding on the day the announcement was made; (b) as a result of this announcement, how many of the projects in (a) will be on hold and delayed for funding; (c) with respect to the projects in (b), what dollar amount that would have been spent by the private sector will now have to be paid for by the government, broken down by province; and (d) before this decision was made and the announcement took place, (i) which were consultations held, (ii) what data was used?

Q-30² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities’ mandate letter and its explicit focus on new spending in green infrastructure and social infrastructure: (a) how much funding has been allocated to green infrastructure; (b) how much funding has been allocated to social infrastructure; (c) which projects that will receive funding under each respective infrastructure pillar, broken down by province; and (d) what data was used to determine which projects will receive funding and in what priority?

Q-31² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to the military equipment currently owned by the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) which items have been identified as surplus; (b) how many of each surplus item are in the CAF’s stock; (c) what is the value of each item deemed to be surplus; (d) where is the current surplus equipment being stored, (e) what is the process for liquidating surplus items in the case of (i) DND, (ii) CAF; (f) what regulations are in place that prevent or restrict DND/CAF’s ability to liquidate surplus military equipment; and (g) what is the government’s policy as to the manner in which the revenue generated from the liquidation of surplus assets will be redistributed by the government?

Q-32² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to the government’s plan to withdraw Canada’s CF-18 jets from the United States led international coalition’s air combat mission against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and to expand Canada’s training mission in the region: (a) what consultations were conducted with members of the coalition and local authorities; (b) what is the government’s proposed timeline to withdraw the fighter jets; (c) when does the government expect to send additional trainers; (d) how many additional trainers will be deployed and where will they be stationed; (e) what types of training will Canadian troops carry out; (f) what type of force protection will be in place for the Canadian trainers; (g) has any analysis been done to ensure that there is no capability gap in Canada’s contribution to the fight against ISIS; and (h) what affect will this have on the amount of funds allocated for Operation IMPACT?

Q-33² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to the cases of Sergei Magnitsky and Borys Nemtsov, what government action has been taken to: (a) identify a list of foreign nationals as defined by the motion introduced by the Member for Mount Royal and unanimously passed by the House of Commons on March 25, 2015; (b) explore appropriate sanctions as defined in the aforementioned motion; (c) establish a list of each person the government determines (i) to be responsible for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (ii) to have participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (iii) to have financially benefited from the detention abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (iv) was involved in the criminal conspiracy uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky; and (d) identify any individual that is responsible for extra-judicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals who (i) sought to expose illegal activity carried out by officials of the Russian Federation, (ii) sought to obtain, exercise, defend or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections in Russia, (iii) acted as an agent of or on behalf of person in a matter relating to an activity described in (ii) or (iii)?

Q-34² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889: (a) does the middle of the main channel of the Ottawa River, from the head of Lake Temiscamingue to the intersection by the prolongation of the western limits of the Seigneurie of Rigaud, such mid-channel being as indicated on a map of the Ottawa Ship Canal Survey by Walter Shanly, C.E., still delineate the boundary between Ontario and Quebec; (b) are copies of the Order of the Governor-General in Council, dated July 21, 1886, that approved the mid-channel boundary described in (a), available to members of the public, and if not, why not; (c) are certified copies of the map referred to in the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, showing the mid-channel described in (a), available to members of the public, and if not, why not; (d) has either the Province of Quebec or the Province of Ontario challenged the location of the boundary since the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, received Royal Assent?

Q-35² — January 21, 2016 — — With respect to the September 2015 announcement of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that it would effectuate a transfer of information to the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS): (a) how many records has the CRA transferred to the IRS to date; (b) on what dates did information transfer occur and how many records were transferred on each date; (c) how many records of individuals have been transferred in total; (d) by what means were the records transferred; (e) how much did it cost the CRA to compile the records for transfer; (f) how much did it cost the CRA to complete the transfer; (g) how were the costs in (e) and (f) calculated and what is the breakdown of those costs; (h) who made the decision to transfer the records; (i) when was the decision made to transfer records; (j) when did the CRA become aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline for such transfer; (k) how was the CRA made aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline; (l) what steps were taken to assess and respond to the notice of deadline extension in (j); (m) what was the policy reason for transferring records despite the deadline extension; (n) when is the next transfer of records scheduled to take place; (o) what analysis was conducted to assess whether the transfer of records during the writ period for the 42nd General Election complied with the "Guidelines on the Conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, Exempt Staff and Public Servants During an Election"; (p) what records exist with respect to any analysis conducted in relation to (o); (q) was information concerning the transfer of records from the CRA to the IRS included in any transition materials prepared for a potential change in government or the Ministers responsible for CRA and Foreign Affairs; (r) what documents exist in relation to (q) and what are their file numbers; (s) has the new Minister responsible for CRA been informed of information transfers to the IRS and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (t) has the new Minister of Justice been informed of the information transfer and been provided with any analysis of its legal implications and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (u) have Canadians who will be affected by the transfer been informed of the transfer of their records; (v) what plans exist with regard to informing Canadians about the transfer of their records; (w) has any proposal to inform Canadians of the transfer of their information to the IRS been evaluated by the government and, if so, with what conclusions; (x) what documents exist in relation to (w) and what are their file numbers; (y) what legal challenges does the government anticipate with respect to information transfer, and how is it preparing to respond; (z) what measures are in place to ensure the security of record transfers to the IRS; and (aa) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted or involved in any way in the preparation or planning of record transfer to ensure conformity with applicable laws regarding the exchange of Canadians' personal information and, if so, to what extent?

Q-36² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) administered by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), between April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2015: (a) what amounts were awarded in the form of contributions to firms and contributions to organizations, broken down by year and by the following regional offices: (i) NRC-IRAP Sherbrooke, (ii) NRC-IRAP Granby, (iii) NRC-IRAP Victoriaville, (iv) NRC-IRAP Longueuil, (v) NRC-IRAP Gatineau, (vi) NRC-IRAP Sept-Îles, (vii) NRC-IRAP Trois-Rivières, (viii) NRC-IRAP Drummondville, (ix) NRC-IRAP Lévis, (x) NRC-IRAP Québec City; (b) how many interactive visits were requested and approved, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); (c) how many projects were submitted and approved broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); (d) how many projects were submitted and approved under the Business Innovation Access Program (BIAP) administered by IRAP, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); and (e) in what other activities did NRC-IRAP participate, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a)?

Q-37² — January 21, 2016 — — With regard to Correctional Services Canada’s (CSC) Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI): (a) what is the complete and detailed list of all evaluations and analyses of efficacy of IPPI which were proposed, conducted, and concluded between December 2009 and December 2015 that were (i) conducted by CSC itself, (ii) conducted by any other party; (b) for each item listed in (a), (i) when was it carried out, (ii) who carried it out, (iii) what was the rationale for carrying it out; (c) for each item listed in (a), what were the conclusions of the evaluation or analysis, and the justification for these conclusions, including (i) whether or not IPPI remained consistent with CSC, police service and government-wide priorities and objectives, (ii) whether or not the design of IPPI, as an enhanced supervision partnership, including objectives of information sharing and apprehension of offenders who were unlawfully at large (UAL), was consistent with practices in other jurisdictions, (iii) whether or not the changing offender profile and number of UAL offenders under CSC jurisdiction demonstrated a need for IPPI, (iv) what staffing challenges (including but not limited to staffing shortages and awareness and understanding of IPPI) affected the implementation of IPPI and what the effects were, (v) whether or not the organizational structure and reporting relationships for IPPI were designed and implemented in a way that supported the continued activities of the initiative, as well as what regional variations in reporting relationships existed and how that affected IPPI, (vi) whether or not the roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders were well-defined and appropriate and what changes should be made to clarify and improve these roles and responsibilities if necessary, (vii) which police officers were most appropriate for community correctional liaison officer (CCLO) positions, (viii) whether or not CCLOs had completed IPPI training and whether or not that training was viewed as relevant, (ix) whether or not IPPI data was being correctly entered into CSC databases, including but not limited to CCLO contacts, (x) whether or not criteria for higher risk offenders for inclusion in IPPI were clearly defined or communicated, and if not, why not, and what were the consequences of this, (xi) whether or not CCLOs were situated in appropriate locations, (xii) whether or not IPPI faced implementation delays and what the consequences of these delays were, including but not limited to re-profiling of offenders, internal re-allocations, and/or lapses of funding, (xiii) whether or not communication and partnerships between CSC, police services and community stakeholders were effective and in what ways they could be improved, (xiv) whether or not stakeholder perceptions of CSC’s mandate and strategies improved since the implementation of IPPI and among whom did they improve or not improve, (xv) whether or not available data suggested that IPPI had an effect on recidivism rates, (xvi) whether or not UAL apprehensions increased following the implementation of IPPI and by how much, (xvii) whether or not IPPI was cost-effective, and if this determination was not possible, why not; (d) for each item identified in (a), (i) how do each of the findings identified in (c) differ from the findings of Evaluation Report: Integrated Police and Parole Initiative published in November 2008, (ii) for what reasons do each of these findings differ; and (e) with regard to the decision to discontinue IPPI, (i) by what process was this decision reached, (ii) what was the rationale for this decision, (iii) in what way did this decision incorporate the items listed in (a) and the findings outlined in (c), (iv) what was the cost-savings of the discontinuation, (v) has CSC or any other government body considered reintroducing IPPI, (vi) what criteria are being used in this consideration?


² Response requested within 45 days