Question No. 1 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to aboriginal justice, broken down by year from 2006 to the present: (a) how much money was dedicated to the Aboriginal Justice Strategy (AJS); (b) how much money was devoted to other aboriginal justice programs; (c) with respect to (a) and (b), by program, how much money was spent; (d) by whom were monies in (a) and (b) spent, on what dates, and for what purpose; (e) broken down by province and territory, on what dates were provinces and territories consulted with respect to funding of the AJS for the upcoming year; (f) brok ...[+++]en down by province and territory, on what dates were the provinces and territories consulted with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (g) broken down by province and territory, how much did each request of the government with respect to the AJS; (h) broken down by province and territory, with which First Nations did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (i) with which First Nations groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (j) with which other stakeholders did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (k) which stakeholders were informed of budget decisions relative to the AJS, by what means and on what dates; (l) broken down by province and territory, how much did each request of the government with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (m) broken down by province and territory, with which First Nations did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (n) with which First Nations groups and NGOs did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (o) with which other stakeholders did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (p) how does the government determine stakeholders regarding aboriginal justice concerns; (q) by whom, with what criteria, and when was the AJS budget determined; (r) in what ways, by ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 864 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to mental health and suicide in the Canadian Forces (CF), including regular forces, reservists and veterans, as well as among Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) veterans: (a) what does history and research show from the First World War (WWI) and the Second World War (WWII), regarding the percentage of Canadian veterans who suffered some degree of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and how it might have impacted their ability to (i) hold down jobs, (ii) maintain relationships, (iii) overcome substance abuse, (iv) maintain their will to live; (b) how are suicides tracked for CF regular forces, reservists and veterans, including RCMP veterans, (i) has the tracking method ch ...[+++]anged over time (from 2000 onwards) for any of these groups, including name changes (e.g., suicide versus sudden death) and, if so, how, why and when, (ii) how are suicides tracked among veterans who may not be known to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) and who may be under other types of care (e.g., in hospitals) or in homeless shelters, prisons, etc.; (c) what are the identified gaps in tracking for each of the identified groups and, for each gap, what action items (i) are planned (including predicted start and completion dates, and necessary funding), (ii) are being implemented (including predicted completion date and necessary funding), (iii) have been completed to address the problem; (d) how are suicides investigated for each identified group today and, for each group, for the years 1990 to the present (or years available), (i) what percentage of victims were known to either the Department of National Defense (DND) or VAC prior to the suicide, or to the medical, social-aid or prison system, (ii) what percentage had attempted suicide before, (iii) what percentage suffered from an identified Operational Stress Injury (OSI), including PTSD, anxiety, depression or substance abuse, (iv) what percentage suffered from acquired brain ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 214 Ms. Joyce Murray: With respect to the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games: (a) for each fiscal year since 2005-2006, how much money has the federal government allocated to the Games, to which entities, on which dates, for what purposes, and what is the total amount; (b) how much money in total was spent on the Canada Pavilion; (c) which companies were invited to bid on the Canada Pavilion; (d) what is the cost breakdown of the Canada Pavilion with respect to construction, hospitality, wages, security and other categories of costs; (e) who adjudicated the bids related to Canada Pavilion contrac ...[+++]t proposals and on what criteria was the adjudication based; (f) what requests for proposals, including MERX codes, did the government put forward related to the Games; (g) in total, how much money was allocated for promoting bilingualism and French translation, on what dates were these funds distributed, to which entities and for what purposes; (h) what was the government’s plan to address the H1N1 influenza pandemic before and during the Games, how much money was allocated for this plan, to which entities was it allocated and for what purpose; (i) what was the government’s plan to address human and sex trafficking during the Games, how much was spent on this plan, which entities received funds, on which dates and for what purposes; (j) how much money did the government spend on including aboriginal communities in the Games and for what initiatives; (k) how much money was allocated from Sport Canada for the Games, on which dates and for what purposes; and (l) what costs, including hospitality, accommodation, travel and other categories of costs, were incurred by the federal government to support the participation of the Prime Minister and other Ministers at the Games, how many staff members were sent from the Prime Minister’s Office, how many rooms did the Prime Minister, Ministers and their staff require, at what cost, at wh ...

Question No. 121 Hon. Dan McTeague: With regard to projects funded in whole or in part by Treasury Board Vote 35 in the Main Estimates 2009-2010: (a) what appropriations have been created or supplemented with funds from Vote 35; (b) what is the name of each project which has received funding from Vote 35; (c) what is the amount of total federal funding, including funds other than money from Vote 35, for each project; (d) how much of the federal funding was provided directly by Vote 35 for each project; (e) which federal department and program is the funding being provided to; and (f) what was the rationale for using Vote 35 to fund this project as opposed to other funds ava ...[+++]ilable to the government under other authorities?

(10) The definition of environmental information should be clarified so as to encompass information in any form on the state of the environment, on factors, measures or activities affecting or likely to affect the environment or designed to protect it, on cost-benefit and economic analyses used within the framework of such measures or activities and also information on the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures in as much as they are, or may be, affected by any of those matters.

The Directive also includes rules for payment systems which are not based on netting but on gross settlement systems (where each payment order is settled individually on a real time basis as it arises during the day): The proposed Directive would also exempt payment systems from national rules giving retroactive effect to the insolvency of a participant in a payment system, such as the zero-hour rule. Such retroactive effect allows the liquidator of an insolvent institution to challenge payment orders which have already been introduce ...[+++]d into the payment system, thus leading to the unwinding of the settlement operation. This unwinding is highly disruptive and can lead to systemic risk. The same is true for revocation of payment orders. Revocation of a large payment order in a payment system during the settlement process, could lead to systemic risk. The Directive would therefore bar revocation of payment orders after the moment contractually fixed by the payment system participants. The insolvency of a participant in a payment system, insofar as it concerned its dealings with the payment system, would be governed by the insolvency law of the country where the payment system was located, according to the proposed Directive. This would avoid conflicts of law and the ensuing legal uncertainty and thus facilitate cross-border participation in payment systems. Collateral security is pledged by the participants in a payment system in order to secure its exposures against the other participants. When collateral security is provided in a cross-border arrangement, its realisation in case of default of the pledging participant can be hindered by conflicts of law which may either weaken the collateral security or even render it unenforceable. In order to ensure collateral security can be realised immediately and in priority over all other creditors (so as not to jeopardise the liquidity of the other participants in the system, i.e. to avoid systemic risk) in the case of a defaul ...