Translation of "Point à évaluer " (French → English) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 104 Hon. Wayne Easter: With regard to imprisonment for life: (a) what offences in the Criminal Code allow for imprisonment for life; (b) how many individuals have been charged with an offence carrying with it a sentence of imprisonment for life, for each of the last ten years, broken down by province and offence; (c) for the individuals charged in (b), how many were convicted; (d) for the individuals in (c), how many received a sentence of life imprisonment; (e) how many individuals in Canada are serving a sentence of “imprisonment for life” and broken down by province and offence, (i) in what year were t ...[+++]hey sentenced, (ii) how many have been designated as dangerous offenders, (iii) of those designated in (ii), how many have received parole in the last 20 years, broken down by year, (iv) of those designated in (iii), how many have reoffended while on parole; (f) how many prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment for life applied for parole and how many of them received parole, broken down by year, for the last 20 years; (g) what is the percentage of prisoners sentenced to life whose parole is approved, broken down by year, for the last 25 years, (i) of those sentenced to life, what type of parole was granted, (ii) of the breakdown in (i), how many committed an offence, (iii) what is the recidivism rate of those sentenced for life who are granted parole; (h) what is the percentage of prisoners not sentenced to life whose parole was approved, broken down by year, for the last 25 years, (i) of those not sentenced to life, what type of parole was granted, (ii) of the breakdown in (i), how many committed an offence, (iii) what is the recidivism rate of those not sentenced for life who are granted parole; (i) is there evidence to demonstrate that offenders sentenced to life and granted parole are more likely to reoffend while on parole than offenders not sentenced to life who are granted parole, (i) what evidence has the government ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 1306 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to the crisis in Syria: (a) what criteria does the government use to determine (i) whether to intervene, (ii) when to intervene, (iii) the nature and scope of any intervention; (b) who makes the determination in (a) and how; (c) what sources does the government rely upon in determining (a); (d) what legal obligations are considered with respect to (a) and in what ways does the Responsibility to Protect doctrine factor into decision making under (a); (e) in what ways has the government evaluated its obligations under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine with respect to Syria; (f) when were such evaluations done, by whom, and with what outcome; (g) have the criteria by w ...[+++]hich the government determines its official policy towards the crisis in Syria changed since 2012; (h) when the Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly expressed his support for an indictment of Bashar al-Assad by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2012, was this the position of the government and does it remain the position of the government that al-Assad ought to be indicted by the ICC; (j) with respect to Canada’s decision not to sign on to the request of 57 countries made in January, 2013, to ask the Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC, did Canada support this request; (k) with respect to (j), when, why, how, and by whom were the determinations made in this regard, and when was Canada approached to join in this endeavor and by what means; (l) what criteria were applied in determining whether to support this effort; (m) are there any specific policies or directives within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that guide decision-making with regard to Canadian intervention in situations of humanitarian crisis; (n) was the decision not to sign the Swiss-led letter asking the United Nations Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC made by the Minister of Fore ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 1305 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to Bill C-10, in the year after it received royal assent: (a) broken down by offence, how many people have been charged for offences created by the bill; (b) broken down by offence, how many people have been convicted of offences created by the bill; (c) broken down by offence, what sentences have been issued to people convicted of offences created by the bill; (d) broken down by offence, how many people have been charged under the provisions of the bill; (e) broken down by offence, how many people have been convicted under the provisions of the bill; (f) broken down by offence, how many people have been sentenced under the provisions of the bill; (g) broken down by offe ...[+++]nce, what sentences have been issued to people sentenced under the provisions of the bill; (h) in how many of the cases in (d) was a constitutional argument raised by the offender (i) at trial, (ii) on appeal; (i) broken down by geographic jurisdiction and instance, how many cases in (d) are pending (i) at the trial level, (ii) on appeal; (j) how much money has the government spent on prosecutions under the provisions of the bill; (k) how much money has the government spent defending the constitutionality of the bill; (l) in what cases, if any, did the bill provide for punishment where none was provided for under previously-existing provisions of the Criminal Code; (m) broken down by offence and length of sentence, in what cases, if any, did an offender sentenced under the provisions of the bill receive a longer sentence than what was allowed for under previously-existing provisions of the Criminal Code; (n) in what ways has the bill made streets and communities safer; (o) in what ways, if any, has the government reviewed the effectiveness of the bill; (p) what were the results of any such reviews; (q) what reviews of the effectiveness of the bill, if any, are ongoing; (r) when will the results of any such reviews be ma ...

15.7 Upon completion of the port facility security assessment, a report shall be prepared, consisting of a summary of how the assessment was conducted, a description of each vulnerability found during the assessment and a description of countermeasures that could be used to address each vulnerability.

Q-240 — Mr. Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona) — With regard to ports of entry into Canada: (a) what are the standards used by all customs officers across Canada to determine a high-risk traveller or shipment, and what is the standard procedure as to what to do with such a traveller or shipment once it is determined to be high-risk; (b) under what standard procedure are customs officers expected to refer travellers to immigration officers, and is there any standard for immigration officers to notify customs officers as to the results of such referrals; if it is determined that a traveller should be referred to an Immigration officer and there is no immigration officer at that location, what is the standard procedure that a customs officer shoul ...[+++]d follow; (c) why are there no joint Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) evaluations planned to determine the effectiveness of customs officers and immigration officers at the border; (d) is there a standard for the sharing of data and intelligence between customs officers and immigration officers; (e) is there a standard referral procedure by which customs officers can clearly determine by which points should a traveller be referred to immigration officers; (f) is there an agreement between the CCRA and CIC that would provide for periodic evaluations to be performed jointly by CCRA and CIC to determine the effectiveness of their joint operations; (g) what percentage of the time does the Primary Automated Lookout System-Highway equipment correctly read licence plates of vehicles stopped at border crossing booths; (h) what facilities exist for examining commercial shipments at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and where are they located in relation to the bridge customs site: (i) what is the standard procedure for ensuring that truck operators told to report to the facility actually arrive there; and (ii) under what circumstances would procedures dictate that a truck be escort ...

(1) The Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 20 September 2001 decided, as recorded in point 15 of its Conclusions, to instruct the Article 36 Committee to work out an easier and swifter form of the evaluation mechanism defined in Joint Action 97/827/JHA of 5 December 1997 establishing a mechanism for evaluating the application and implementation at national level of international undertakings in the fight against organised crime(3), in order to define a procedure for the peer assessment of national anti-terrorist arrangements.