Interventions in the House of Commons
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Don Davies Profile
2019-04-11 10:10 [p.27016]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by many Canadians who are appalled by the situation of the lack of clean drinking water on first nation reserves across this country. They point out that the government has made a pledge to end all drinking water advisories. However, they point out the inconsistency of the government spending $4.5 billion on a pipeline when there is a $3.2 billion capital investment gap that, if closed, would provide clean drinking water for all indigenous peoples in this country.
The petitioners call on the government to reverse those priorities and to put clean drinking water for all Canadians ahead of the fossil fuel industry.
View Pierre-Luc Dusseault Profile
NDP (QC)
View Pierre-Luc Dusseault Profile
2019-04-10 15:39 [p.26980]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, a petition regarding the Government of Canada's purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline at a cost of $4.5 billion. The signatories strongly oppose this purchase as well as the oil and gas subsidies that the Government of Canada continues to pay out, despite promising to end them during the last election. The signatories call on the House to end the oil and gas subsidies.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by Canadians from the ridings of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, Saanich—Gulf Islands, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Kanata—Carleton, Ottawa—Vanier, Nepean, St. Catharines, Mississauga—Malton, London—Fanshawe, London North Centre, Mississauga—Lakeshore, London West, Courtenay—Alberni and Chatham-Kent—Leamington. They are calling on the House of Commons to respect the rights of law-abiding firearms owners and reject the Prime Minister's plan to waste taxpayers' money studying a ban on guns that are already banned.
This petition was signed before the Liberal-appointed senator in the other place announced that she is going to put forth an amendment in Bill C-71 that is going to ban all firearms in Canada.
View Hélène Laverdière Profile
NDP (QC)
Madam Speaker, the Environment Canada report released this week is extremely worrisome. Canada is warming at twice the global average, and things are even worse in the north.
Meanwhile, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development confirmed what we already know: the government is not doing enough to combat climate change. We also learned this week that the Liberals took $50 million from a green fund to subsidize the oil industry.
The government cannot keep acting as though nothing is happening. It cannot keep subsidizing the oil industry. It cannot claim to be a champion of the environment and then buy a pipeline with taxpayer money instead of investing heavily in the economy of the future. The environment must be our top priority. Talk is not enough. We need action.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 1720---
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to government advertisements (ads) launched on Facebook since January 1, 2016: (a) how many ads have been launched by month and what were the corresponding campaigns for each (ie. employment insurance, citizenship services, tax credits, grants, etc.); (b) how long was each ad active for online; (c) what were the insights for each ad launched, including (i) how many people were reached by each ad, (ii) what percentage of women and men were reached by each ad, (iii) what were the age group ranges used for each ad, (iv) what were the federal, provincial, or municipal regions targeted by each ad, (v) were specific interests, pages, or likes included in the targeting of the ads, broken down by ad; and (d) who in the department or Minister’s office receives or has access to the data gathered in the insights of these ads?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2193--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to government expenditures with Nesta Holding Company Ltd. or companies owned in whole or in part by Nesta Holding Company since January 1, 2016, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, : (a) what are the total expenditures, broken down by company; (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) company, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) quantity, (vi) price per unit, (vii) file number, if applicable; and (c) on what date did the Chief Executive Officer of Invest in Canada Hub formally resign from the Board of Directors of Nesta Holding Company?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2194--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the government’s plan to create a “critical election incident public protocol” group for the 2019 election: (a) what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that political staff in ministerial offices, including in the Office of the Prime Minister, do not influence any members of the group; (b) will there be a prohibition on communication during the writ period between members of the group and ministers or their exempt staff; and (c) if no prohibition exists, why is the government allowing communication between ministers or their exempt staff and members of the group?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2195--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to “code names” used by the Department of National Defence: what are the code names used for the (i) Chief of Defence Staff, (ii) Minister of National Defence, (iii) various members of the Minister of National Defence’s exempt staff, broken down by individual, (iv) Prime Minister, (v) various members of the Office of the Prime Minister, broken down by individual, (vi) other ministers, broken down by minister, (vii) Clerk of the Privy Council, (viii) Vice-Chief of Defence Staff, (ix) Judge Advocate General, (x) Chief of Military Personnel, (xi) National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, (xii) Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, (xiii) Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, (xiv) Commander of the Canadian Army, (xv) Commander of Canadian Joint Operations Command, (xvi) Director of Staff of the Strategic Joint Staff, (xvii) Canadian Armed Forces Chief Warrant Officer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2196--
Mr. Larry Miller:
With regard to advertisement spending since January 1, 2018: (a) how much has been spent on advertisements originating from U.S. companies, broken down by each expenditure and medium (i.e. print or digital); and (b) how much has been spent on advertisements originating from Canadian companies, broken down by each expenditure and medium (i.e. print or digital)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2199--
Mr. Larry Miller:
With regard to Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit): (a) what is the anticipated cost to taxpayers for its implementation; and (b) what are the findings of any cost analysis done by government departments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2200--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (i.e. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2201--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to federal employment in the federal electoral district of Timmins—James Bay, broken down by department, municipality, and year since 2004: how many federal government employees are based in the above-named electoral district?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2209--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to water advisories, both boil-water or other water advisories, in Indigenous communities: (a) in addition to the online government website list, how many have been added since January 1, 2016; (b) of those added, how many are still under an advisory; (c) what is the complete list of Indigenous communities currently under a water advisory in addition to the online government website list, broken down by region, including new additions; (d) of the communities in (c), which communities are receiving direct assistance from the federal government to lift the advisory; and (e) of the communities in (d), what type of assistance is being provided by the federal government, broken down by (i) name of the program or initiative, (ii) funding amount if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2210--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the subsidies credited for electric vehicles and charging stations since January 1, 2016: (a) how much has been credited to Canadians; and (b) what is the breakdown of these credits by province and city?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2211--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to government advertisements (ads) launched on Facebook since January 1, 2018: (a) how many ads have been launched by month and what were the corresponding campaigns for each (e.g. Employment Insurance, citizenship services, tax credits, grants, etc.); (b) for how long was each ad active online; (c) what were the insights for each ad launched, including (i) how many people were reached by each ad, (ii) what percentage of women and men were reached by each ad, (iii) what were the age-group ranges used for each ad, (iv) what were the federal, provincial, or municipal regions targeted by each ad, including postal codes, if applicable; and (d) who in the department or Minister's office receives or has access to the data gathered in the insights of these ads?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2219--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to federal spending within the electoral district of Perth—Wellington for each fiscal year from 2015-16 to 2017-18: what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded by the government, broken down by (i) department and agency, (ii) municipality, (iii) name of recipient, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the spending was made, (vi) date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2220--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to abbreviations, code names and code words used by departments or agencies: (a) what is the complete list of abbreviations, code names and code words used by departments and agencies in communication between the department or agencies and the minister’s office; and (b) for each abbreviation, code name or code word in (a), whom or to what does it represent or refer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2221--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to expenditures related to Twitter since January 1, 2016, broken down by department and agency: what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) topic and tweet that was promoted, if known, (iv) description of goods or services provided, if different than a promoted tweet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2222--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to the new steel and aluminum tariffs which the government started collecting in 2018: (a) how much has the government collected to date; (b) of the tariffs collected to date, how much has been distributed back to Canadian steel and aluminum companies, as of present; and (c) what is the complete list of recipients of the funding in (b), including the amount each recipient received?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2223--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to government advertising for oil pipeline projects, including approved projects and projects in the evaluation phase, since November 4, 2015: what is the total amount spent on advertising, broken down by (i) year, (ii) pipeline project, (iii) department, (iv) advertising platform, (v) supplier?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2224--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to government interactions with and expenditures related to Canada 2020: (a) what are the details of any roles or expenditures the following organizations have in relation to the “Canada Food Brand Project” being put on by Canada 2020, (i) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, (ii) Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada, (iii) Farm Credit Canada, (iv) National Research Council of Canada; (b) how much did each organization listed in (a) pay Canada 2020 to be listed as a “participant” or “partner” for the project; and (c) what are the details of any other expenditures the organizations in (a) had with Canada 2020 since November 4, 2015, including (i) total, (ii) purpose, (iii) date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2225--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the backlog in security assessments for individuals seeking asylum, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by month: what was the number of individuals in Canada seeking asylum who had not yet received a security assessment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2226--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, since December 2015 and broken down by month: (a) how many individuals were issued a removal order; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many were still in Canada; (c) of the individuals in (a), how many left Canada; (d) how many individuals were issued a deportation order; (e) of the individuals in (d), how many remain in Canada; (f) how many individuals were deported; (g) how many individuals seeking asylum were scheduled to appear at an Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) hearing; (h) how many individuals seeking asylum appeared at an IRB hearing; (i) how many individuals seeking asylum failed to appear at an IRB hearing; and (j) how many individuals seeking asylum have not had their IRB hearing?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2227--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to Employment Insurance (EI), for 2017 and 2018, broken down by year: (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 the 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 were the number and percentage of term employees and 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 are the details of 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?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2228--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2230--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Vancouver East, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved, (viii) when was funding disbursed; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Vancouver East that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Vancouver East by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved, (v) when was the funding disbursed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2231--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the government's consultations that occurred in development of the new national anti-racism strategy: (a) how many took place; (b) when did they take place; (c) where did they take place; (d) what are the details of the participants, including (i) name, (ii) occupation, (iii) dates of the meetings they attended, (iv) from which province or territory that the group or individual originated, (v) whether the group or individual was invited or petitioned to appear; (e) what was the total cost incurred by the government to hold these consultations; (f) when did the consultations begin; and (g) what is the scheduled date of the final consultation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2232--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to international adoption since 2013: (a) from what countries are the children coming; (b) how many children are coming from each country, broken down by year; (c) how many children were accepted and how many were rejected, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) province or territory of destination; (d) which of the countries of origin practise Sharia Law; (e) how many countries of origin have an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada office; (f) from what countries does Canada currently have a moratorium on international adoptions and how long have they been in place; (g) what is the average processing time for an international adoption, broken down by (i) year, (ii) country of origin, (iii) province or territory of destination; (h) since 2013, what is the yearly breakdown of the number of international adoptions in Canada; (i) how many applications are currently waiting to be processed, broken down by (i) country of origin, (ii) province or territory of destination; (j) which other departments oversee international adoption; and (k) how many staff of the departments in (j) have been assigned specifically to processing international adoption applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2233--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2234--
Ms. Georgina Jolibois:
With regards to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action No. 57: (a) broken down by department, what initiatives and programs has the government started since January 2015 to provide education to federal public servants on the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law and Aboriginal-Crown relations; (b) which of those programs and initiatives in (a) use skill-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights and anti-racism; (c) broken down by department, how much funding has been provided to initiate the programs in (a); and (d) broken down by department, what measures of success has the government put in place to determine the effectiveness of the programs and initiatives in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2235--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to delays in processing Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests by the Cabinet Confidentiality Legal Unit in the Privy Council Office (PCO) as a result of members of the unit being assigned to work on an ongoing court case rather than on ATIP requests: (a) how many PCO employees in the Cabinet Confidentiality Legal Unit have been assigned to work on documents related to an ongoing court case; (b) what is the average additional delay this is causing to ATIP requests; (c) did the PCO get permission from the Access to Information Commissioner prior to taking this action, which is causing massive delays in ATIP processing and, if not, why; (d) on what date did PCO notify the Access to Information Commissioner that it was causing this delay; (e) how many employees in the Cabinet Confidentiality Legal Unit are left working full time on ATIP requests and have not been tasked in full or in part to working on the ongoing court case; (f) what is the current estimated backlog of ATIP requests waiting to be processed by the Cabinet Confidentiality Legal Unit for (i) requests received by PCO, (ii) requests received by other departments and agencies consulting PCO; and (g) for the requests in (f), what is the (i) shortest, (ii) median, (iii) longest total processing time, from receipt of the ATIP request to the documents being delivered to the requestor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2236--
Mr. Robert Sopuck:
With regard to the development of the new Canada Food Guide: what scientific evidence formed the basis of the decisions to (i) advise Canadians to choose protein foods that come from plants more often, (ii) advise Canadians, in recommending they choose protein foods that come from plants more often, that the benefits of eating more plant-based proteins are greater than the overall benefits of consuming more of the unique nutrient packages found in meat-based proteins, even though the latter include nutrients not as easily accessed from many plant-based proteins such as iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and essential amino acids, (iii) advise Canadians to eat only lower-fat dairy products despite evidence that some products that are higher in fats can provide health benefits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2237--
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
With regard to the processing times for refugees applications from outside of Canada: (a) broken down by country, what is the current processing time for applicants under the program for (i) government-assisted refugees, (ii) privately sponsored refugees; (b) what are the historical processing times for the applicants in (a), broken down by month since January 1, 2016; (c) what is the current number of privately sponsored refugee applications which are awaiting processing; and (d) how many of the applications in (c) are for Yazidi applicants?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2238--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to federal spending in the current constituency of Beloeil—Chambly and the former constituency of Chambly—Borduas, for the fiscal years of 2011-12 to 2018-19: what are the details of all federal government expenditures, including grants, contributions, loans and investments to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2239--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to federal spending in the current constituency of Beloeil—Chambly and the former constituency of Chambly—Borduas, for the calendar years of 2011 to 2018: what are the details of all federal government expenditures, including grants, contributions, loans and investments to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2240--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the government’s announced intention to merge the Oshawa Port Authority and the Hamilton Port Authority: (a) what is the rationale for merging the organizations; (b) what are the details of any stakeholder consultations conducted on the proposed merger, including (i) date, (ii) organizations consulted, (iii) government participants; (c) which organizations consulted were in favour of the merger and which organizations were against the merger; and (d) did the government conduct an economic analysis related to merging the organizations and, if so, what are the details of the analysis, including the results?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2241--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) fleet, the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessels and the procurement of new ships through the National Shipbuilding Strategy: (a) since the program's inception in 2010, what are the total expenditures, broken down by fiscal year, related to (i) program costs, (ii) major Crown project office costs, (iii) the technical services subcontracts; (b) for each item in (a), what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) amount, (ii) details of the project, (iii) name of organization, company or department providing the service, (iv) date of expenditure; (v) was a competitive bid undertaken to provide the service; (c) what steps has the government taken to ensure that the program remains on time and on budget as promised in previous reports to Parliament, since the inception of the National Shipbuilding Strategy to present; (d) if steps have been taken, what are the details of such steps, broken down by individual steps; (e) since 2014, has the CCG, the Department of Finance, Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of National Defence or the Privy Council Office received any warnings or concerns related to (i) the state of the CCG fleet, (ii) risks related to operating older vessels in the fleet, (iii) risks related to harm that could be caused in the marine environment, (iv) costs of each ship as part of the CCG fleet, (v) mitigation steps being considered to address operating an older and riskier fleet; (f) regarding all concerns or warnings raised in (e), (i) who were the top three officials in the department who received the warnings and concerns, (ii) on what date were the warnings received, (iii) what was the nature or summary of the warnings or concerns; (g) for all concerns or warnings raised in (e), (i) did the Minister receive the warnings and concerns, (ii) on what date did the Minister receive the warnings, (iii) what was the Ministers’ response; (h) since 2015, have the departments identified in (e) prepared briefing notes based on risks identified and related to the CCG fleet, including, but not limited to, (i) vessel life, (ii) rust and water damage, (iii) budget to replace, (iv) schedule to replace, (v) operational risk, (vi) other challenges at Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards, specifically related to the Offshore Science Fisheries Vessels, the Offshore Oceanographic Vessels, the Joint Support Ships and the Polar Class Icebreaker; and (i) for each briefing note, email or related document in (h), what are the details, including (i) date prepared, (ii) authors, (iii) recipients, (iv) findings, (v) actions taken to address each concern raised, (vi) date which the said actions were taken, (vii) internal filing or reference number for each document?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2242--
Ms. Cheryl Hardcastle:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Windsor—Tecumseh, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Windsor—Tecumseh that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Windsor—Tecumseh by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2243--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2244--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on housing over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2245--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in the riding of North Island—Powell River on housing over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in the riding of North Island—Powell River over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in the riding of North Island—Powell River as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?
Response
(Return tabled)
8530-421-146 Answer to question Q-1720 o ...8555-421-1720 Government advertisements ...8555-421-1720-01 Government advertisemen ...8555-421-2193 Nesta Holding Company Ltd.8555-421-2194 Critical election incident ...8555-421-2195 Code names used by the Dep ...8555-421-2196 Advertisement spending8555-421-2199 Bill C-3448555-421-2200 Federal funding in the con ...8555-421-2201 Federal employment in the ...8555-421-2209 Water advisories in Indige ...
...Show all topics
View Jamie Schmale Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-278, an act to amend the Lobbying Act, specifically with regard to reporting obligations.
Canadians have a right to know when foreign entities are trying to influence federally elected officials. The intent of this bill is to require the sources of any foreign funding received by lobbyists and grassroots organizations to be reported in the lobbyist registry to provide Canadians with greater transparency about who is actually lobbying their politicians.
This bill aims to make two changes to the current law.
The first amendment requires all corporations and organizations that lobby the government to disclose all funds received from foreign nationals, non-resident corporations and non-resident organizations. Lobbyists would then need to disclose the original foreign source of their funding, rather than hiding behind layers of shell companies or a chain of charities and foundations.
The second amendment expands the types of activities that lobbyists must report, specifically requiring reporting of any activities that appeal to the public directly or through mass media to try to persuade them to communicate directly with public office holders to influence their opinion. Reporting any grassroots communications—and I say “grassroots” loosely—funded by foreign actors that impacts the government's ability to consult the Canadian public on a specific course of action would allow the Canadian public to assess for themselves the motives of these actors.
The bill does not restrict or prohibit any groups from seeking foreign funding, nor does it restrict or prohibit their right to protest; it simply requires organizations that want to participate in our democracy to be honest and transparent. It provides transparency to Canadians and allows them to draw their own conclusions from that clarity.
My colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke should be commended not only on a well-thought-out and important bill that strengthens democracy in this country, but also on her patience. Nearly three years ago, the foreign lobbyist transparency act was introduced and received first reading. In that time, the Liberal government bought a $4.5-billion pipeline nobody wanted to sell, and now we cannot even build it. The Liberal government killed energy east, a $12-billion pipeline that would have brought economic prosperity to New Brunswick and other provinces right across the country. The government killed northern gateway, an $8-billion project that would have seen Alberta oil get to lucrative markets in Asia to the benefit of all Canadians. The energy sector has lost $100 billion in potential investment, which is equivalent to 4.5% of Canada's gross domestic product. Capital investment in the mining sector has fallen every year that the current government has been in power. The value of total mining projects planned and under construction from 2018 to 2028 has been reduced by 55% since 2014, from $160 billion to $72 billion.
We have seen Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, and Bill C-48, the anti-tanker bill—which does not stop tankers, just Canadian tankers—pass in this House.
The polices of the Liberal government have doomed the Canadian natural resources sector.
While this bill has floundered in the House, a lot of time has passed for lobbyists to influence the government's policy decisions. We must have robust lobbyist regulations in place so that Canadians can have a clear picture of who is attempting to influence whom.
However, when it comes to the manipulation of domestic policy by foreign entities, the picture is not so clear. A CBC report in mid-February analyzed more than 21,000 tweets from so-called “troll accounts” that had been deleted by Twitter and that had set their sights on Canada, including on the pipeline debate. The report found 245 accounts re-tweeting messages about the pipeline and circulating media articles and re-tweets from the accounts of anti-oil activists.
According to the report, the foreign accounts are suspected of being based in Russia, Iran and Venezuela. It should come as no surprise that these three countries produce large amounts of oil. Russia and Iran are second and third respectively in global oil exports.
The hon. Minister of Natural Resources was questioned by the media about this foreign attack on Canada's oil and gas sector, and he had this to say:
Its always concerning when you have people from outside of your country trying to influence the decision-making. There is a legitimate way of doing that, and that's through diplomacy and other venues and avenues.... Misinformation and information that is not based on facts is never healthy for any democratic process to take place.
I could not agree more, and while this incident might not be caught up in this legislation, it is a symptom of the cold. By having in place a stronger, healthier act governing lobbying activity in this country, we can innoculate ourselves better against all forms of foreign influence in our political decision-making process.
We are all aware of the work of Vivian Krause, who has been researching the oil sands for nearly a decade and believes that there is a concerted push against Canadian oil, funded by U.S. interests, to keep Alberta oil chained to U.S. markets. Over the past 10 years, nearly $90 million in foreign funding, according to Krause, has gone into this endeavour.
Whether one believes that American philanthropists are behind the scheme to keep Canadian oil in the ground, whether one believes it is American industrialists ensuring low prices by restricting access to international markets, or whether one believes the whole thing is just a conspiracy theory, the fact remains that the amendments in the bill will illuminate the matter and provide a clear picture for Canadians to judge for themselves what is really going on.
That is what this bill is all about. It is about giving power to Canadians to judge for themselves. Almost two-thirds of Canadians have identified oil and gas as one of the most critical economic sectors in the entire country. Sixty-nine per cent of Canadians say that the country will face a considerable or significant economic impact if no new oil pipelines are built. Fifty-two per cent support constructing both the Trans Mountain and the now cancelled energy east projects, while 19% oppose both.
Are these opinions influenced by subversives, pro- or anti-oil, or are they based on clear economic, scientific and environmental facts? There are divisions, for sure, and alternate opinions are important in the policy-making process, but it is Canadians' opinions that need to shape Canadian policy, not foreign entities with their own political and economic agendas.
Earlier in the debate, on January 31, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked if there was any concern, I believe her word was "disturbed," that the Fraser Institute had received more foreign funding to defend pipelines than environmental groups had received from the U.S. to attack Canadian pipelines. Yes, everyone in the House should be concerned when anyone is receiving foreign funds to influence Canadian policy, but it is far more important, in fact it is our duty here in this place, to be influenced by the 69% of Canadians who are worried about the significant economic impact if no new oil pipelines are built or the 52% for and the 19% opposed to the construction of the Trans Mountain and energy east pipelines.
During the debate on Bill C-278, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra raised a concern that the lobbyist community might face an increased reporting burden and that any amendments must “respect the principles of the act, which seek to strike a balance between transparency and ensuring that the compliance burden imposed on lobbyists is reasonable and fair.” I believe, as do the vast majority of Canadians, it seems, that protecting our democracy from foreign influence might just be worth increasing the reporting burden for lobbyists.
Bill C-278, the foreign lobbyist transparency act, would achieve financial clarity and improved accountability through the public reporting of payments made by foreigners to lobbyists.This is a non-partisan piece of legislation that would support a healthy, transparent and accountable democracy for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and I look forward to it undergoing full scrutiny at committee, returning and passing in the House.
View Wayne Stetski Profile
NDP (BC)
View Wayne Stetski Profile
2019-04-04 14:46 [p.26731]
Mr. Speaker, students from Nelson recently participated in a climate change strike and Ktunaxa students in grades five and six from the ?aq'am reserve wrote me passionate letters warning about climate change.
It is clear my constituents from Kootenay—Columbia and Canadians from across the country want immediate action, but the Liberal government is failing them. The Liberals' budget continues fossil fuel subsidies, which limit our ability to transition to a low-carbon economy before it is too late. We have fewer than 12 years to act.
When will the government end fossil fuel subsidies and help workers transition to the green jobs of the future?
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2019-04-04 14:46 [p.26731]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the question and more importantly, his continued advocacy for climate change.
In particular, I would like to thank the young people who march all across Canada and around the world to support climate action. At this time in our history, it is hard to imagine anything more important. I am pleased to share that last week we commenced a consultation with Canadians to identify inefficient non-tax fossil fuel subsidies that we can phase out. In addition, our plan includes over 50 measures that are going to help implement climate action in Canada, including putting a price on pollution, ensuring 90% of our electricity is generated from clean resources and a number of other measures. This is what real action looks like.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2019-04-02 14:38 [p.26630]
Mr. Speaker, Canadian scientists are sounding the alarm. Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world and it is effectively irreversible. The report is scathing, but it is no surprise.
The government is defending Harper's climate targets. It is still subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of billions of dollars. It spent $4.5 billion of our money to buy a pipeline.
Northerners want action. Young people are demanding it. The time for timid is over. We need big action. We need a green new deal. When will the government take bold action to take on catastrophic climate change?
View Catherine McKenna Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Catherine McKenna Profile
2019-04-02 14:38 [p.26630]
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree we need bold action and that is exactly what we are doing. We have a climate plan with over 50 measures.
Let us talk about what those measures are. First of all, as of yesterday, it is no longer free to pollute anywhere in Canada. We are also phasing out coal, investing in renewables and ensuring a just transition for workers. We are ensuring energy efficiency measures so we can support businesses, schools, hospitals and municipalities in saving money so they can also take action on climate change.
We are investing in clean solutions. We are taking action, but what—
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, in 2015 the Liberals promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Then it was inefficient subsidies, so already we were suspicious. Imagine our surprise this morning when we heard from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that they do not even have a definition for the term “inefficient”. Obviously, then, the Liberals are still subsidizing oil, knowing that they are going to miss all their targets in the fight against climate change.
Would the Prime Minister not agree that the best definition of the word “inefficient” can be summarized in two words: “Liberal government”?
View Catherine McKenna Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Catherine McKenna Profile
2019-04-02 14:40 [p.26630]
Mr. Speaker, I for one am very pleased to stand up and say that, as of yesterday, it is no longer free to pollute anywhere in Canada. We have an ambitious plan to tackle climate change.
Of course we need to eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. We are phasing out coal. We are investing in renewables, in public transit, in electric vehicles and in energy efficiency measures.
In the upcoming election, Canadians will have to decide between the Liberal Party, which has a climate change plan, and the Conservative Party, which—
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2019-04-02 16:41 [p.26646]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa raised an interesting point, and in my opinion it is in order for us to talk about jobs in Oshawa. It might not be a point of order, but it is a point. I felt that he delivered it in a manner that is orderly, so I will address it in my remarks as well.
This Prime Minister has claimed, wrongly, that he was trying to save jobs by interfering in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. I invite members to look back at my earlier remarks. In them I deposited conclusive evidence that there were not 9,000 jobs at stake in the SNC-Lavalin affair. That said, there are jobs at stake in other parts of the country for which the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing to help mitigate the job losses.
Let us start with the auto sector.
The member for Oshawa is probably the greatest champion of the auto sector in the House of Commons. It is very hard to imagine anyone who has done more for that sector than that particular member. He has championed an end to regulatory red tape. He has fought for free trade. He has opposed excessive taxation. He has done all of this in order to make our auto makers as competitive as humanly possible so that our workers can earn a better living and our consumers can have access to even better products.
Now the Prime Minister stands by and witnesses as GM shuts down its operations and as Chrysler announces 1,500 additional job losses. While auto makers are adding jobs in other non-Canadian jurisdictions and the auto industry around the world is on the rise, here at home these companies are heading for the hills, and it is no surprise.
Let us go through the laundry list of all of the damaging policies that the current government has inflicted on our manufacturers.
The Liberals implemented a carbon tax that will make it more expensive for factories to operate here in Canada. It is a job-killing tax. They have added new red tape that contributes to the administrative cost of operating a manufacturing facility on this side of the border. They signed on to a trade agreement with Donald Trump that puts a cap on the future growth of Canada's auto exports to our biggest market—and by the way, they made that concession to Trump without getting anything in return that we did not already have. They have done all of these things, and then they have stood by and watched as these policies have led to their natural consequences: massive job losses in the automotive sector.
It is not just the automotive sector. It is also the energy sector, where tens of thousands of western oil and gas workers and thousands of additional refinery workers in the east have suffered for lack of a pipeline.
When the Prime Minister took office, three of the world's most respected pipeline companies were ready to put shovels in the ground and get building. Trans Canada had energy east, Enbridge had the northern gateway project, and of course Kinder Morgan had Trans Mountain. One by one, all three of those companies have now left. They are all gone. They were, up until the day the Prime Minister took office, ready to deploy billions of dollars in building pipelines with their own money, but not anymore.
Trans Canada backed out after the Prime Minister changed the approval process for that pipeline, adding endless delays and changing the criteria by which the pipeline's approval would be judged to include what is called upstream and downstream emissions. In other words, the pipeline would not only be judged based on the emissions its own operations would cause but by the emissions caused by the production and later consumption of all the oil that would travel through it. No other pipeline in our competitor jurisdictions faces that same kind of test.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister imposes no similar requirement on Saudi, Algerian or Venezuelan oil. When the tankers from those countries arrive at our shores, he does not say, “Wait, you can't come in unless I do an examination of the upstream and downstream emissions of all this oil.” No, he just says, “Come right in.” That oil is converted into gasoline and pumped into Canadian cars and other manufacturing outlets for other uses, even though it has not been subjected to the same strict examination that the Prime Minister was going to impose on the energy east pipeline.
Therefore, that pipeline, which would have brought a million barrels of oil a day from western Canada to eastern refineries, was cancelled.
Then we have the northern gateway pipeline, a project that had the support of 80% of the four first nations communities along the path of the pipeline. They had signed onto partnership agreements that would have rendered them entitled to jobs, training, income for schools and hospitals, and an opportunity to escape poverty once and for all.
Even though those communities had signed those agreements, the Prime Minister was happy to violate that decision and veto the northern gateway pipeline. It is funny. He claims to believe in consultation with indigenous people. How many of the communities along the pathway of the northern gateway pipeline did he consult when he vetoed their right to build that pipeline?
Do we only believe in consultation if that consultation leads to the answer, “No”? It is apparently so. That is why numerous first nations groups are now taking the Liberal government to court for its refusal to properly consult them before killing their pipeline projects. There are great new consortiums of aboriginal business leaders now fighting, tooth and nail, to get these resource projects approved, but the Prime Minister is ignoring his constitutional duty to consult with those first nations, because he does not like what they have to say.
Then, of course, we have the Kinder Morgan pipeline, or Trans Mountain, as it is called. That pipeline should be without any controversy. It does not require any new right of way. It simply twins an existing pipeline to increase the capacity from 300,000 to 900,000 barrels a day, giving Alberta and Saskatchewan producers the ability to meet the Asian market of billions of people.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister added so many delays and was so weak in responding to environmental extremists and foreign interest groups that the company finally said that it had had enough, it was not prepared to do business in Canada anymore and it was leaving.
In order to win the votes of the majority of Canadians who want pipelines, the Prime Minister engaged in a very costly and confusing public relations exercise. He said, “I know, we'll buy the existing pipeline.” It was $4.5 billion for a $2 billion, 60-year-old pipeline. Here is the thing: No one was looking for him to buy a pipeline. He did not need to buy the pipeline. We already had that pipeline. We want to build a pipeline.
Here is the difference between the Prime Minister's approach and ours. He bought a pipeline without building one. We will build one without buying it.
Just like we did in the Harper era where four major pipeline projects were built, including those that shipped oil to tidewater. Literally millions and millions of barrels of oil are currently shipped through pipelines built during the time when the Harper government was in office. We had also approved the northern gateway pipeline, which was about to begin construction when the Prime Minister took office and vetoed its construction altogether.
I want to go back to the Trans Mountain pipeline, a project for which the Prime Minister has now paid $4.5 billion and there is not a single shovel in the ground; not a single inch of pipeline has been built. Here is the irony. We have gone from the Texas company planning to invest $8 billion in Canada to build a pipeline here to the company taking 4.5 billion tax dollars out of Canada to build pipelines in Texas. I congratulate everyone. Our tax dollars are now being used to build pipelines in Texas.
TransCanada is moving more and more of its investment and operations to Texas. In fact, there are rumours it might take the word Canada out of its name altogether. All these companies are taking their operations, their dollars and their jobs and going to Texas. In other words, all our exes are in Texas, so the Prime Minister should hang his hat in Tennessee. I think he might enjoy Nashville.
Nevertheless, the fact is we need to defend our energy workers and their ability to ship their goods to market. They are not looking for welfare. They do not want a more generous government cheque in their mailbox. They do not want corporate welfare for the companies that employ them. They want the government to get out of the way and let them build pipelines. When the Conservative government takes office, it will clear the way for pipelines. The Conservative leader has laid out a very clear plan to make that happen.
First, the Conservatives will cancel Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. That bill extends further the hearing process to make it uneconomical and risky for proponents to put their money aside for projects in Canada. It requires that companies engage in ill-defined sociological debates about pipelines. For example, they would need to do a gender impact study. As far as I know, pipelines are genderless, but apparently the government believes that everything has to do with sociology and nothing has to do with economics. Liberals want a gender study on each natural resource project.
Most people were scratching their heads to try to understand what this meant, until the Prime Minister explained it to them. He was in South America and he explained that male construction workers bring negative gender impacts to rural communities. In the period after he made these bizarre comments, rural women from across the country started to share the gender impacts they had experienced from having construction workers in their communities. They shared that they bring jobs and pay taxes to fund local schools and hospitals. They support families.
By the way, Mr. Prime Minister should know that not all energy workers are men. There are highly skilled female energy workers whose jobs he has killed by blocking the construction of these key projects.
If he reads a gender impact study of a pipeline, why does he not actually go out to a natural gas or oil development project in western Canada and talk to real people on the ground instead of grandstanding at some fancy international conference in South America, showing off his spectacularly colourful and radiant socks as he lectures the world on the negative gender impacts of construction workers? These workers do important work for our economy and our country. There is dignity in what they do and they deserve our respect.
They will get our respect when the Conservative government forms office.
First, we will scrap Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill.
Second, our Conservative leader has announced that he will invoke subsection 92(10) of the British North America Act to declare pipeline projects to be to the general advantage of Canada.
This a power that our founding fathers created in our Constitution for the federal government in the case of any interprovincial construction project. For example, if a rail project or a pipeline or any other project travels over provincial boundaries, then all of the approvals for that project can be uploaded to the federal government under subsection 92(10) of the Constitution. In this way the prime minister and his executive branch can set up the approval process that prevents parochial, not-in-my-backyard local politicians from blocking the construction of pipelines.
We understand that in a federation, it is impossible to have the free flow of goods, services and people if individual municipal or provincial decision-makers are able to block those projects anywhere along the line.
Imagine if we allowed just any municipality to say that it was going to ban the passage of a railway through its community and would not allow railways there. Well, I guarantee that not a single railway would traverse our country. It would be impossible. That is why the federal government is exclusively responsible for railways.
It should be the same with pipelines. All it takes is a prime minister who has the courage to make it so by invoking subsection 92(10) of the Constitution that our founding fathers provided to us when they brought about Confederation over a century and a half ago.
Third, we will place strict time limits on the hearings so that we will not have endless processes that go nowhere. We will signal to businesses from around the world that they have a particular and confined time period during which they will get either a yes or a no. Once they have that answer, they can proceed. No business is going to tie up $10 billion or $15 billion for five, six or seven years when they can go to jurisdictions almost anywhere else on the planet and build their projects within less than two years, or at least start them. Therefore, the Conservative leader will bring in strict time limits on the hearings.
Fourth, the Conservative leader has announced that his plan for pipelines will ban foreign money and foreign interests from the hearings on these projects.
We know why these groups want to block the construction of pipelines. It is in their naked self-interest to keep ripping off Canadians by banning us from building pipelines and getting our product to market. It is clear why Saudi, Algerian, Venezuelan and other interests would want to ban us from getting western oil to eastern refineries. That guarantees that they can continue to corner the market for our very large refineries in the eastern part of the country.
Furthermore, it is clear why American oil companies would like to see us fail to build pipelines. After all, absent pipelines to tidewater, Canada is forced to export 99% of its oil to the United States of America at massive discounts, which have equalled, in some cases, more than 50% below world prices. We sell them the product for $15, and they can resell it for $55 or $60. No wonder these American oil interests have funded phony environmental groups to obstruct and block the construction of Canadian pipelines here in Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition's plan is to ensure that only those who have either specific and unique expertise related to the project or who are resident on or near the project's construction itself will appear at hearings. People will not be able to just claim esoteric interest in pipelines and environmental policy and then burn up hours upon hours of hearing time before the National Energy Board under this proposed change. Instead, the studies will focus very specifically on the expertise of people who know what they are talking about with respect to the particular project and the people who live along the affected path. That is it.
All of this can and will be done while carrying out our moral and constitutional obligation to consult with first nations people, who are increasingly the most passionate proponents of resource development across the country. We will no longer allow the hard left in this country to stigmatize and stereotype first nations people as monolithically opposed to resource development.
In fact, the resources for which we propose to allow development are, in many cases, on the property of the first nations themselves. They are the owners, and therefore they should have the harvesting rights in many of these particular projects. That is why we will streamline the approval process to get resource projects built. In the process, we will lift thousands of first nations people out of desperate poverty and into great upward mobility with jobs, schools and hospitals paid for through revenues generated from their communities.
That is—
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-04-02 17:51 [p.26655]
Mr. Speaker, on November 19 I noted that the price of western Canadian heavy oil had fallen to a record low, threatening employment in the sector as well as provincial government revenues. I noted that this was a major crisis facing our country and that the industry was considering a coordinated production cut in order to boost prices.
I asked the federal government to provide assurances that the federal Competition Bureau would not intervene to prevent such a production cut. Of course, what ended up happening is that on December 2, the Alberta premier announced that the provincial government would mandate a production cut of about 9%. Because this was required by the province and not just coordinated among companies, there was no role for federal competition policy.
I am pleased to report that the policy I raised in the House, which the Alberta government implemented, was quite successful in rapidly increasing the price of western Canadian select oil. The Alberta government also invested in railcars in order to help move its oil to market in the absence of sufficient pipeline capacity. That is also making a positive contribution to pricing.
These are a couple of very positive examples of what the Notley government has done to steward Alberta's oil industry, and I think all western Canadians appreciate those efforts.
I want to speak in a broader sense about federal competition policy. It is already the case that Canadian law does not try to sanction cartels or uncompetitive activity regarding things that are entirely for export, because of course Canadians benefit from being able to get the best possible price for commodities that we are exporting.
That logic largely applies to oil, but of course we also consume oil right here in Canada. We have had a recent kerfuffle about the application of the federal carbon tax to gasoline. In the past few days, we have seen photos of Conservative politicians gassing up over the weekend, ahead of the federal carbon tax coming into effect.
It is worth noting that the carbon tax is about 4¢ or 5¢ per litre, whereas the price of gasoline has gone up by something like 20¢ per litre over the past month. At a minimum, this tells us that there are many factors other than carbon pricing that influence the cost of gasoline. However, it also suggests that if there is a role for federal competition policy, it should be focused on markets that actually affect Canadian consumers.
There is a role for the federal Competition Bureau to look at collusion regarding the retail pricing of gasoline, because as much as we want a high price for the oil that Canada tries to sell on world markets, we also want to make sure there is a fair price for consumers at the pump here in Canada. The way to do this is to ensure that the Competition Bureau focuses not so much on the oil production but on gasoline retailing.
View Paul Lefebvre Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Paul Lefebvre Profile
2019-04-02 17:55 [p.26655]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for his question.
Our government stands with workers in our energy sector and always will.
After 10 years of inaction under Stephen Harper, 99% of our oil exports were still sold at a discount to the United States. While the Conservatives spent a decade failing our energy sector by failing to get our oil to new markets, we are working each day to fix their failures. Our government made this issue, and market access in general, an urgent priority.
In fact, our government purchased the proposed Trans Mountain expansion project and related assets. The Conservatives opposed this investment. On TMX, we are focused on following the guidance of the Federal Court of Appeal to move the process forward on TMX in the right way, through meaningful consultations. We also approved the Line 3 replacement project and have always supported Keystone XL.
While we worked to build new pipeline capacity and gain access to non-U.S. global markets, we continue to take action. In December, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of International Trade Diversification announced a $1.6-billion package to support workers and boost competitiveness. This package includes $1 billion in commercial financial support from Export Development Canada to invest in innovative technologies, address working capital needs, or explore new markets; a new $500-million energy diversification commercial financing envelope over three years from the Business Development Bank of Canada; a $50-million investment through Natural Resources Canada's Clean Growth program in oil and gas projects, projected to generate $890 million in investments; and $100 million through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's strategic innovation fund in energy and economic diversification-related projects.
While the Conservatives continue to put down our energy sector, in the last few weeks and months we have secured the single largest private sector investment in Canadian history with the LNG Canada project, creating 10,000 jobs at peak construction. As well, there was a final investment decision on a $4.5-billion petrochemical facility in Sturgeon County, which will see 3,000 workers on the ground at peak construction. Inter Pipeline announced two new facilities, valued at $3.5 billion, in the Industrial Heartland, creating over 2,000 full-time jobs at peak construction. Also, Nauticol announced plans to develop a $2-billion methanol plant just south of Grande Prairie, which will create 1,000 direct construction jobs.
These are real investments in our energy sector, in Canadians and in Alberta workers.
Results: 1 - 15 of 3683 | Page: 1 of 246

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|