12. Regrets that according to the Court of Auditors' annual report, the staff costs claimed by beneficiaries are not usually being verified on the basis of original supporting documentation, even though the Centre’s ex ante verifications of grants (awarded on an annual basis to a network of national partners) consist of a comprehensive desk-analysis of cost claims submitted by grant beneficiaries, as well as a review of certificates obtained from external auditors which were contracted by the beneficiaries or of certificates from independent public officers; regrets the fact that related ex post ...[+++]verifications were last carried out in 2009 and stresses the need to carry out ex post verifications in order to enhance the procedure; notes with concern that according to the Court of Auditors' findings, ex ante verifications provide only limited assurances and suggests that ex ante verification procedures should be strengthened; calls on the Centre to address this issue and to report to the discharge authority on the steps taken within the framework of the 2012 discharge follow-up;

5. Acknowledges from the Court of Auditors that in 2012, the Centre awarded grants to research institutions and individuals and that the total grant expenditure amounted to EUR 752 000 , representing 1,4 % of the 2012 operating expenditure; is concerned that the Centre does not usually obtain any documents to substantiate the eligibility and accuracy of the costs claimed by beneficiaries; notes that while the Centre has adopted an ex post verification strategy and has planned for its implementation in 2012, no ex post verifications ...[+++]of 2012 grant expenditure have yet taken place; acknowledges that for the transactions audited by the Court of Auditors, supporting documentation was obtained by the Centre on the Court’s behalf, which provided reasonable assurance as to the legality and regularity of those transactions;

(Return tabled) Question No. 1340 Mr. Matthew Kellway: With regard to the issue of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics in Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario: (a) when was Health Canada approached by the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics; (b) how many consultations took place between Health Canada and the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics; (c) how many consultations took place between Health Canada and (i) Canadian Blood Services, (ii) the province of Ontario; (d) when did these consultations take place and if no consultations took place, how did Health Canada determine that consultations were not necessary; (e) ...[+++] when were the locations for the proposed clinics approved; (f) what process did the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics follow to obtain approval for the location of the clinics; (g) what is Health Canada’s policy on the operation of for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada; (h) what is Health Canada’s policy with regard to following the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (“Krever report”); (i) what existing statutes, regulations, auditing processes, etc. are in place to ensure the safety of Canada’s blood supply; (j) with regard to ensuring the safety of Canada’s blood supply, what is the regulatory role of (i) Health Canada, (ii) the province, (iii) Canadian Blood Services; (k) what role does Canadian Blood Services play in the establishment or regulation of for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada; (l) what does Health Canada’s auditing process for licensing for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada involve; (m) what information is provided to Health Canada by the operators; (n) how often does Health Canada audit these clinics; and (o) what is the relationship between Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in ensuring the safety of blood plasma products purchased from the United States of America?

Question No. 467 Mr. Scott Andrews: With regard to aboriginal communities: (a) how many audits or evaluations were initiated or completed between January 1, 1990, and December 21, 2010, inclusive, concerning grants, contributions or other transfers from any government department or agency, or concerning the financial management or operations, of (i) the Innu nation of Labrador, (ii) Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation, including the former Sheshatshiu Innu Band Council, (iii) Mushuau Innu First Nation or Natuashish First Nation, including the former Davis Inlet Band Council and Utshimassits Band Council, (iv) the Innu Healing Foundation, (v) Mamu Tshishkutamashutau - Innu Education Inc., (vi) Innu Business Development ...[+++]Centre, (vii) Innu Development Limited Partnership, (viii) Innu Recreation Complexes Inc.; (b) which department or agency conducted each audit or evaluation referenced in subquestion (a); (c) what was the date of each audit and evaluation; and (d) what are the internal file or reference numbers associated with each audit and evaluation?

This was virtually a proprietary operation by a family, with Perry Fontaine in the chair; Keith Fontaine, the brother; Phil Fontaine, another brother; and Vera Bruyere, the daughter of Perry Fontaine, the chair (1345) What is most amazing is that we have an audit that has led to many charges by the RCMP, but this audit covers only the period from October 1, 1999, to February 28, 2002, while we know there were major problems identified in an earlier audit, not made public, dating to pre-1997.

The RCMP performs a fingerprint-based criminal record check; checks with the Canadian Police Information Centre for outstanding warrants and confirms criminal records; and checks the Criminal Intelligence Database for links to organized crime or other criminal investigations.