Section Home
Table of ContentsPrint format
Previous PageNext Page
 
Publications - September 18, 2014 (Previous)
 

Thursday, September 18, 2014 (No. 111)


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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.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-6452 — June 19, 2014 — Ms. Freeland (Toronto Centre) — With regard to negotiations in relation to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union: since January 1, 2012, what are the costs incurred in relation to travel by government officials from the current Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, as well as the former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to (a) Brussels, Belgium, or (b) any other European jurisdictions for meetings about the CETA, broken down by (i) department, (ii) individual, (iii) itemized expenses?
Q-6462 — June 19, 2014 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Prince Edward Island, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Q-6472 — June 19, 2014 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Manitoba, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Q-6482 — June 19, 2014 — Mr. McGuinty (Ottawa South) — With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Saskatchewan, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Q-6492 — June 19, 2014 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With regard to internal trade barriers within Canada: (a) what does each department of the public service list as an internal trade barrier; (b) for how long has each department maintained a list of all existing internal trade barriers; (c) what are details on how this list is maintained and updated; (d) what are the materials prepared for the Minister, the Minister’s staff, or departmental bureaucrats on any and all of these meetings with provinces and territories advising on additions to the list of internal trade barriers; and (e) what are the materials prepared for the Minister, the Minister’s staff, or departmental bureaucrats advising on additions to the list of internal trade barriers?
Q-6502 — June 19, 2014 — Mr. Valeriote (Guelph) — With respect to software developed by the government since January 2011 for use by any non-government entity or the public, including, without limitation, software programs, mobile applications, website applications, embedded systems, and all other programming done by or on behalf of the government: (a) what were all names for the software, broken down by dates of use; (b) on what date was the software released for public use, or on what day is its public release anticipated; (c) through what means is the software accessible by its intended users; (d) what was the total cost of developing the software; (e) what is the total revenue generated for the government by the software; (f) how many times has the software been downloaded, copied, or otherwise accessed by its intended audience; (g) how many times has the software been downloaded, copied, or otherwise accessed by anyone other than its intended audience; (h) for what reason was the software developed; (i) for what reason was the software released, or in the case where it has not been and will not be released, for what reason will the software not be released; (j) under what license was the software released; and (k) what are the file numbers and details of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence or other government records relating to the software, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Q-6512 — June 19, 2014 — Mr. Trudeau (Papineau) — With regard to the Northern Gateway Project: (a) did the government request an assessment or legal opinion from any department or agency as to whether consultations conducted by the Joint Review Panel on the Northern Gateway Project fulfilled the Crown’s duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples, and if so, what were the contents of those assessments, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) date; (b) did the government provide oversight for, monitor or evaluate the adequacy or sufficiency of the Joint Review Panel’s Aboriginal consultation efforts throughout the panel process, and if so, what were the findings of said oversight, monitoring and evaluation, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) date; (c) which Aboriginal communities or groups did the Joint Review Process engage with during the five phases of consultation described in the "Aboriginal Consultation Framework for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project" document, broken down by (i) phase, (ii) Aboriginal community or group, (iii) year; (d) how much participant funding was requested by Aboriginal communities or groups throughout the Joint Review Panel Process, broken down by (i) Aboriginal community or group, (ii) year funding was provided; and (e) how much participant funding was provided to Aboriginal communities or groups throughout the Joint Review Panel Process, broken down by (i) Aboriginal community or group, (ii) year funding was provided?
Q-6522 — June 19, 2014 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to any information in the government's possession regarding Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRDs) in Canada: (a) how many Canadians are impacted by ADRDs today, (i) what is the incidence and prevalence in Canada, broken down by gender and by 5-year cohort above 65 years of age, (ii) what is the average age of onset, (ii) what is the average time from diagnosis to requiring informal caregiving, (iii) what is the average time from diagnosis to requiring formal caregiving; (b) how many Canadians are currently in hospital, as a result of having ADRDs, (i) what are the benefits and risks of having people with ADRDs in regular hospital care, (ii) do people with ADRDs get the care they need in hospital care and if not, why not; (c) how do the number of hospitalizations compare for older adults with ADRDs than for age-matched older adults without ADRDs, (i) how do clinical outcomes compare for hospitalized people with ADRDs than for age-matched older adults without ADRDs; (d) what is the average cost of an acute care bed in hospital compared with the cost of a bed in long-term care; (e) what is the average length of time people with ADRDs spend in fully dependent care, and how does this length of time compare with other conditions, including, but not limited to, cardiovascular disease and cancer, (i) how does this length of time impact the health economics of ADRDs; (f) how many Canadians are caregivers to people with ADRDs, (i) what is the average length of time (in years) caregivers provide to people with ADRDs, both informally and within formal care, (ii) what is the annual estimated value of the care caregivers provide for those with ADRDs in Canada, (iii) how many Canadian caregivers suffer stress, illness, or economic hardship as a result of caregiving, (iv) what are the estimated economic costs to the health care and social care systems; (g) what training do medical students and practising family physicians receive to ensure dementia is detected before it reaches a critical level; (h) do best practices exist for people with ADRDs, (i) how does care vary from one province and territory to another, and from one facility to another; (i) what research and studies has the government done, and what funding has it given following (i) the World Health Organization and Alzheimer’s Disease International report, “Dementia: A Public Health Priority”, and the Alzheimer Society of Canada’s report, “Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia on Canadian Society”, (ii) what are the dates, results, recommendations, and funding amounts; (j) what is done by the government to (i) promote a dementia-friendly society, (ii) make ADRDs a national public health and social care priority, (iii) improve public and professional attitudes to, and understanding of, ADRDs, (iv) replicate some of the evidence-based approaches and solutions already adopted by countries to tackle ADRDs, (v) prioritize research, (vi) raise awareness about prevention, (vii) promote early diagnosis and management, (viii) strengthen workforce training and capacity, (ix) implement responsive care and health service delivery, especially for caregivers; (k) what research and studies has the government done, and what funding has it given regarding the need to work with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to develop a community-based dementia framework, designed to keep persons with dementia safely at home for as long as possible, (i) what are the dates, results, recommendations, and funding amounts; (l) what research, studies, funding has the government devoted to how a community-based dementia strategy would impact (i) emergency department overcrowding, (ii) hospitalizations, (iii) Alternative Level of Care rates, (iv) long-term bed placement, (v) freeing-up of hospital beds, (vi) hospital overcrowding, (vii) wait times, (viii) number of new nursing homes that would need to be built, (ix) quality of life for those with ADRDs, (x) costs; (m) how are ADRDs expected to increase over the next 20 years, (i) what are the estimated costs to families and the health care system; (n) how are healthcare costs and healthcare resources expected to increase over the next 20 years given the rapidly increasing numbers of persons with ADRDs; (o) what research, studies, funding has the government devoted to developing a pan-Canadian brain strategy to address (i) neurodevelopmental brain conditions, (ii) neurodegenerative brain conditions, (iii) brain and spinal cord injury, (iv) what are the dates of any studies, results, recommendations, and funding amounts; (p) what research, studies, and funding has the government given to developing a pan-Canadian dementia strategy, (i) what are the dates of any studies, results, recommendations, and funding amounts; (q) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to a pan-Canadian brain strategy, (i) how many stakeholders are calling for such a strategy, (ii) how many Canadians and their families do each of the identified stakeholders represent; and (r) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to a pan-Canadian dementia strategy, (i) how many stakeholders are calling for such a strategy, (ii) how many Canadians and their families do each of the identified stakeholders represent?
Q-653 — June 19, 2014 — Mr. Carmichael (Don Valley West) — With regard to questions on the Order Paper numbers Q-264 through Q-644, what is the estimated cost of the government's response for each question?
Q-6542 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) — With regard to the proposed Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP): (a) how does the RNUP legislation and strategic plan incorporate the ecological integrity, water quality and quantity, and habitat restoration goals and priorities of (i) the Provincial Greenbelt Plan, (ii) the Rouge North Management Plan Section 4.1.1.2, (iii) the 2007 Rouge River Watershed Strategy and its targeted natural heritage system, (iv) the Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan (2007), (v) the Rouge Park Natural Heritage Action Plan (2008), (vi) the Toronto Great Lakes Area of Concern remedial action plan for Toronto, (vii) the federal report "How Much Habitat is Enough" and the recommendation of more than 30% forest cover and 10% wetland cover per watershed, (viii) the National Parks Act, (ix) the Ontario Provincial Parks Act, (x) the draft Rouge River Watershed Fisheries Management Plan (2011), (xi) the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, (xii) the Endangered Species Act, (xiii) other relevant provincial, municipal and federal legislation; (b) how has the government addressed the issues raised in the unanimous November 2012 City of Toronto Motion on RNUP; (c) why has the promised RNUP "Transition Advisory Committee" not been created, (i) what is the updated timetable for the creation of this committee, (ii) what individuals or entities will comprise the advisory committee, (iii) what mandate will the advisory committee be given; (d) what steps have Environment Canada, Parks Canada and the government taken to assess the water quality, biodiversity, migratory fisheries, climatic, flood and erosion control, public health and ecological service benefits of restoring the majority of the public lands in Rouge Park to forest, wetland and meadow vegetation; (e) will the federally-owned and provincially-designated Greenbelt "Natural Heritage System" and Oak Ridges Moraine lands in north Pickering be included as part of the RNUP Study Area; (f) will the "Federal Greenspace Preserve" lands in north Pickering be included as part of the RNUP study; (g) how much of the land within the RNUP study area is (i) mature native forest habitat, (ii) wetland habitat, (iii) leased land utilized for cash cropping, (iv) leased land utilized for agricultural uses other than cash cropping and what are these other uses, (v) leased for residential purposes, (vi) land within road, hydro, highway, pipeline and other public utility corridors, (vii) land which is accessible to the public, (viii) other, and what are these other categories; (h) for the most recent year available, what are all the leased properties in the 57 km2 NRUP study area, broken down by (i) address, geographic location and approximate boundaries on a map, (ii) description of the buildings associated with the lease, (iii) land area (acres and hectares) associated with the lease, (iv) name of leaseholder and name of the actual tenants, (v) annual lease rate and length of lease, (vi) true annual public cost of property upkeep and lease administration, (vii) public investment in the property needed to address modern building code, safety and energy conservation standards; (i) what provincial, municipal or conservation authority lands have been transferred to the government or Parks Canada within the proposed RNUP, (i) what are the predicted time frames for the various outstanding land transfers, (ii) what compensation or benefits, direct or indirect, have been offered to the province, municipality or conservation authority by the government or its agencies, for the various land transfers; (j) will a RNUP "Trust Fund" be established similar to the existing Rouge Park/Waterfront Regeneration Trust Fund; (k) what provisions and timelines does the draft RNUP legislation and strategic plan outline to (i) reduce cash cropping in RNUP, (ii) transition towards ecologically sound farming practices, (iii) phase-out the agricultural mono-cultures and pesticides which threaten the survival of the monarch butterfly and many other rare and endangered species; and (l) what are the details of all the submissions received regarding the RNUP Concept?
Q-6552 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With regard to the Department of Finance’s Venture Capital Action Plan: for the years for which data are available, (a) what investments were made; (b) what organizations benefited from the funds and what was the total amount invested in each case; (c) was a certain amount set aside for cooperatives; and (d) how many cooperatives benefited from the investments and what amount was granted to each cooperative?
Q-6562 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to the government’s plan, announced in the 2014 budget, to acquire privately-owned lands through the National Conservation Plan: (a) how much has the government already spent in 2014-2015 on purchasing ecologically-sensitive privately-owned lands and how much does it plan on spending on the purchase of such lands, either directly or through third parties, in the three fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017, in Quebec; (b) how much of this amount has been or will be spent specifically on purchasing wetlands in Quebec; (c) where in Quebec has the government purchased, if it has done so, ecologically-sensitive lands, including wetlands, in 2014-2015 and where does it plan to purchase ecologically-sensitive lands in the province, including wetlands, in the three fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017; and (d) does the government purchase ecologically-sensitive lands, including wetlands, through programs other than the National Conservation Plan and, if so, (i) how much has been spent in the last three fiscal years purchasing ecologically-sensitive privately-owned lands, including wetlands, (ii) how much will be spent in the next three fiscal years (2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017) on purchasing such lands through any programs other than the National Conservation Plan?
Q-6572 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to radioactive material: (a) which national authorities hold electronic records of transports of radioactive material (especially of fissile material) within Canada or those imported, exported and moved in transit; (b) what information (e.g. sender, sender's address, recipient, recipient's address, date of transport, type of cask, quantity of radioactive material) is recorded over what period of time; (c) does the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission compile separate electronic records of transports of radioactive material (especially of fissile material) within Canada or those imported, exported and moved in transit; and (d) what are the details of all non-confidential recorded information related to transports of radioactive material within Canada as well as those imported, exported and moved in transit in the last 10 years?
Q-6582 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) — With regard to the renaming of the Rockcliffe Parkway to the Sir George-Étienne Cartier Parkway: (a) was this change preceded by public and private consultations; (b) what was the consultation process and what were the methods involved; (c) when was the consultation process launched; and (d) what organizations were consulted?
Q-6592 — September 11, 2014 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to government spending in the Hamilton East—Stoney Creek riding, what was the total amount spent, from fiscal year 2010-11 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the funds were received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount, (iii) the program through which the funding was allocated, (iv) the department responsible, (v) the designated recipient?
Q-6602 — September 15, 2014 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to Service Canada Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan call centres for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of calls broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (b) what was the number of calls that received a high volume message, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (c) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent, broken down by year; (d) what were the actual service level standards achieved for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (e) what were the service standards for call backs, broken down by year; (f) what were the service standards achieved for call backs broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (g) what was the average number of days for a call back by an agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (h) what was the number and percentage of term employees, and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (i) what is the rate of sick leave use among call centre employees, broken down by year; (j) what is the number of call centre employees on long-term disability; and (k) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by year?
Q-6612 — September 15, 2014 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to the Advisory Panel on Labour Market Information: (a) which recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Labour Market Information Report have been implemented and what was the date they were put into place; (b) which of the recommendations of the Report are in the process of being implemented and what is the timeline for completion; and (c) which recommendations of the Report have not been implemented?
Q-6622 — September 15, 2014 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of EI applications, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (b) what was the average EI application processing time, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by 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, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, 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) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (h) what were the service standards for call backs at EI call centres broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (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, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (l) what is the rate of sick leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees, broken down by year; (m) what is the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long term disability; (n) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by year; (o) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; (p) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (i) year, (ii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; and (q) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year?
Q-6632 — September 15, 2014 — Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section; (b) how many appeals currently waiting to be heard pertain to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals have been heard by the Income Security Section; (d) how many appeals were heard by the Income Security Section in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (e) how many appeals were heard by the Income Security Section relating to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals heard by the Income Security Section were allowed; (g) how many appeals heard by the Income Security Section were dismissed; (h) how many appeals to the Income Security Section were summarily dismissed; (i) how many appeals allowed by the Income Security Section pertained to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (j) how many appeals at the Income Security Section have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (k) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (l) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (m) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (n) how many appeals at the Income Security Section heard in writing have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (o) how many members assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit cases have (i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, or a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physiotherapy, or psychology, and how many have (ii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (p) what is the Tribunal’s protocol with regard to urgent hearing requests for Canada Pension Plan Disability cases; (q) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division; (r) how many income security appeals currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division pertain to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (s) how many income security appeals have been heard by the Appeal Division; (t) how many income security appeals were heard by the Appeal Division in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (u) how many income security appeals were heard by the Appeal Division relating to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (v) how many income security appeals heard by the Appeal Division were allowed; (w) how many income security appeals heard by the Appeal Division were dismissed; (x) how many income security appeals to the Appeal Division were summarily dismissed; (y) how many income security appeals allowed by the Appeal Division pertained to (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (z) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (aa) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (bb) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (cc) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (dd) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard in writing have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (ee) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section; (ff) how many appeals have been heard by the Employment Insurance Section; (gg) how many appeals were heard by the Employment Insurance Section in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (hh) how many appeals heard by the Employment Insurance Section were allowed; (ii) how many appeals heard by the Employment Insurance Section were dismissed; (jj) how many appeals to the Employment Insurance Section were summarily dismissed; (kk) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (ll) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (mm) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (nn) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed and (ii) dismissed; (oo) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance Section heard in writing have been (i) allowed and (ii) dismissed; (pp) how many Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division; (qq) how many Employment Insurance appeals have been heard by the Appeal Division; (rr) how many Employment Insurance appeals were heard by the Appeal Division in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (ss) how many Employment Insurance appeals heard by the Appeal Division were allowed; (tt) how many Employment Insurance appeals heard by the Appeal Division were dismissed; (uu) how many Employment Insurance appeals to the Appeal Division were summarily dismissed; (vv) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division have been heard (i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (ww) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard in person have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (xx) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard by teleconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (yy) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard by videoconference have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (zz) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard in writing have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (aaa) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section; (bbb) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section; (ccc) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Appeal Division; (ddd) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Appeal Division; (eee) of new Appeal Division members hired since May 2014, how many are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (fff) of new Income Security Section members hired since May 2014, how many are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; (ggg) of new Employment Insurance Section members hired since May 2014, how many are (i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; and (hhh) what is the Tribunal’s protocol with regard to requests for urgent hearings due to financial hardship?
Q-6642 — September 15, 2014 — Mr. Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) — With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of EI applications broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (b) what was the average EI applications processing time broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by 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, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, 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) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (h) what were the service standards for call backs at EI call centres broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (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, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (l) what is the rate of sick leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees, broken down by year; (m) what is the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long term disability; (n) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by year; (o) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; (p) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (i) year, (ii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; and (q) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year?
Q-6652 — September 15, 2014 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to funding applications submitted to the government, broken down by department and fiscal year, since 2003-2004, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what is the total number of funding applications submitted to the government from the constituency of Sudbury; and (b) what is the total number of successful funding applications submitted to the government in which money was allocated to an individual, business, or non-governmental organization in the constituency of Sudbury?
Q-6662 — September 16, 2014 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — With regard to Public Private Partnerships financed by the government: (a) what are all the projects so financed; (b) how long did it take to design the bidding process; (c) what was the length of the bidding process from initial expression of interest to close; and (d) what was the cost of a bid for proponents?
Q-6672 — September 16, 2014 — Mr. Goodale (Wascana) — With regard to Environment Minister Peter Kent’s intention stated on January 20, 2012, to "invest an additional $78.7 million over the next five years to further enhance weather and warning services across the country" and his intention stated on May 27, 2013, to invest "an additional $248 million over five years to further strengthen Canada's meteorological services": (a) in what manner have these commitments been fulfilled to date; (b) what plans exist to implement these commitments in the future; and (c) what are the details, in (a) and (b), of each project related to the commitments including (i) its title, (ii) a summary of the project, (iii) its location, (iv) its estimated cost, (v) its targeted start date, (vi) its estimated completion date?
Q-6682 — September 16, 2014 — Mr. Dubé (Chambly—Borduas) — With regard to the Fryer Island dam, located on the Richelieu River in Quebec and forming part of the Chambly Canal National Historic Site: (a) how much has been spent, per year, on maintaining and repairing this dam since it was built; (b) what is the number of dam inspection reports since 2005 and what is the inspection policy for this dam; (c) what are the longer term plans of the government or Parks Canada for the dam’s repair and modernization; and (d) how much money has been set aside to repair and modernize the Fryer Island dam in the coming years?
Q-6692 — September 16, 2014 — Mr. Eyking (Sydney—Victoria) — With regard to the Cape Breton Regional Municipality and Victoria County: (a) what were the numbers of employees, broken down by all departments, working in that region in 2005; (b) what are the numbers of employees, broken down by all departments, working in that region currently (in 2013, if current data is not available); (c) how much will be spent, broken down by all departments, on infrastructure in that region in 2014 (in 2013, if current data is not available); and (d) how much was spent, broken down by all departments, on infrastructure in that region in 2005?
Q-6702 — September 16, 2014 — Mr. Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher) — With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a)does the Department have an internal policy on the processing times for grant and contribution applications for the various program components administered by the Department, and if so, (i) does this internal policy set out the maximum processing times for the Department and for the Minister’s office and, and if so, what are they, (ii) are internal or external evaluations done to measure the Department’s compliance with its policy on processing times for grant and contribution applications for programs administered by the Department; (b) for all of the Department’s various program components, what is the average processing time for grant and contribution applications between the time the Department receives the grant application and the time the Department publicly announces its final decision to the applicant, broken down by program component and quarter, for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015?

2 Response requested within 45 days
ParlVU