Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 403
View Marc-André Morin Profile
NDP (QC)
View Marc-André Morin Profile
2013-06-13 15:04 [p.18304]
Mr. Speaker, at a time when the Conservatives are making cuts to our public services, the people of Laurentides—Labelle are too often forced to rely on poor-quality online services. For example, completing an application for employment insurance is becoming increasingly difficult.
The lack of reliable access to high-speed Internet is hampering social and economic development in my area, and it is the people who are suffering the consequences.
Will the government enact legislation to ensure that all citizens have access to high-quality Internet services, regardless of where they live?
View Kellie Leitch Profile
CPC (ON)
View Kellie Leitch Profile
2013-06-13 15:05 [p.18304]
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, Service Canada provides options for Canadians in many different ways, whether that is accessing one of the Service Canada offices within 50 kilometres of their home, accessing it through the Internet or accessing opportunities through outreach postings throughout the country.
We provide service across Canada. Canadians can even call in at 1-800 O Canada.
View Jonathan Genest-Jourdain Profile
NDP (QC)
View Jonathan Genest-Jourdain Profile
2013-06-06 17:26 [p.17849]
Mr. Speaker, I had a very quick look at my recent speeches in the House, and I noticed a common underlying thread in a large number of bills introduced in the House. I have already made at least three speeches this week that touched on the same subjects, the same common thread and the same trains of thought.
At the risk of being redundant, I want to point out that the government is gradually and stealthily trying to distance itself and step back from its obligations. This is evident with the introduction of both private members' and government bills that allow the government to gradually transfer its obligations to provide services to Canadians across the country. For example, it is delegating its obligation to deliver services to charities, which are not accountable. Bill S-8 is no different.
When I consider my brief experience here in the House and the many hours I have spent in committee, I come to the same conclusion. In reality, many initiatives that focus on “Indianness” and aboriginal issues seek to allow the government to opt out of its obligations and shift the burden it has because of the fiduciary relationship, among other things, onto the backs of third parties or band councils.
This relates to Bill S-8, which pertains to safe drinking water. I am thinking, in particular, of the First Nations Land Management Act. This initiative was brought forward to, ultimately, technically and officially, give first nations communities back a certain amount of control over land management and authorizations related to partial occupancy.
In reality, if a legal expert truly focused on the enactment and the letter of this law, he would clearly see that the burden shifts the moment an agreement is signed under the First Nations Land Management Act. The environmental liabilities—past, present and future—are then assumed by the band.
As a result, all the profiteering and negligence of successive governments over the years in relation to environmental monitoring, management and assessments just add to the negligence we are seeing in 2013. The results could be catastrophic. That is why the government is trying to opt out of these obligations. It is important to remember that the reclamation of a single parcel of land on a given reserve can easily cost $100,000. It depends on whether we are dealing with oil or other pollutants and contaminants.
The same reasoning applies in the case of Bill S-8. The government is simply shifting its obligations with regard to access to safe drinking water, infrastructure upgrades and water management and filtration onto the backs of first nations and band councils, which do not have enough funding to take on these sometimes costly responsibilities. I am just thinking about my community, which recently had to deal with contaminated water. There are huge costs associated with these types of problems.
An informed review of the proposed legislative initiative indicates that there are non-derogation clauses whose interpretation and application would open the door to the abrogation of ancestral and treaty rights.
View Jonathan Genest-Jourdain Profile
NDP (QC)
View Jonathan Genest-Jourdain Profile
2013-06-06 18:31 [p.17857]
Mr. Speaker, I will continue my speech.
We were talking about the Canadian government's desire to distance itself from highly contentious issues, such as the provision of services to Canadians, and also matters pertaining to drinking water and the upgrading of drinking water infrastructure.
That is why these clauses have been added and why a trend is emerging from this initiative and many others as well. We see that it is fragmented. The Canadian government is trying to gradually distance itself from highly contentious issues on which the national and international media have shone a rather unfavourable spotlight.
However, first and foremost, with respect to the provision of services to Canadians, we have seen that the government's priorities are clearly focused on natural resource extraction. In keeping with what my hon. colleague said, the government is pandering to its political base. That is why there will be cherry-picking and certain issues will be given priority in the Conservatives' hidden agenda.
Now, with regard to Bill S-8, the government is adding phrases such as “to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands”. This type of phrase opens the door to the unilateral violation of aboriginal rights. That is extremely shameful and questionable. We know that aboriginal, treaty and other rights exercised by aboriginal peoples in Canada are enshrined in the Constitution. The fiduciary relationship also comes into play. Simply put, a fiduciary relationship necessarily implies that the first nations' interests will be the Canadian government's primary concern when it introduces legislation or plans to impose unilateral measures, such as those before the House.
This is enshrined in the Constitution and has been reiterated by the courts, including the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court has taken a position on a specific case, it becomes immutable. In this case, the Supreme Court indicated that these obligations were associated with every initiative that could potentially interfere with the traditional and modern way of life of first nations peoples.
As a result, the moment the government considers or makes a decision, whether it is based on policy or what is actually happening on the ground, before doing anything to implement that decision, it must ensure that the decision does not in any way interfere with the traditional activities and way of life of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Therein lies the problem in most cases. The government is generally reluctant to hold consultations and seek public approval because it is a lot of work. What is more, we know that when public consultations are held, there is a good chance that people will not agree and that they will be fairly vocal about it. People will openly express their opinions. That is the concept behind direct democracy: the public is called upon to take a stand.
As the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou mentioned, when people are consulted, there is the possibility that they will not agree with what is being proposed. That is always one of the options that a person has. That person can simply say no and reject the measure that is being proposed, and that is a valid response.
Social acceptability often appears to be the desired outcome, because it confers prestige. This is not nearly as meaningful in 2013. It has been tarnished and taken over by industry. I would say that social acceptability is rather abstract and not something that ought to be pursued. It may well be that there is simply no acceptability and that people take a position against certain projects.
The Supreme Court clearly established that any infringement of aboriginal prerogatives must be seen in light of the methods preferred by aboriginal peoples to exercise their rights. It must also take into consideration the need to avoid any infringement of aboriginal rights to the greatest extent possible. There is nothing exhaustive about this list. I am just briefly listing a number of criteria. It also needs to include fair compensation in the event of expropriation and, lastly, it necessarily implies that there be consultations.
As I just mentioned, the issue of consultations is the sticking point in 2013. In the case of most, if not all of the statutes and legislative tools brought to my attention over the past two years I have sat in the House, the government has shown little desire to consult the aboriginal population in general.
The government seems content to have asked nine community leaders for their opinion. Turning to the 3,000 members of a community and being prepared to brave the storm is not exactly at the top of the Conservatives’ agenda in 2013. This is understandable, because public support is not necessarily in the cards. Some Conservative members have even been stopped from going into a Tim Hortons for a coffee in their own riding because the locals want to tear off their heads.
In short, the social and political conditions are not right for their policies, their approach and the directives coming from their backbench MPs.
View Jonathan Genest-Jourdain Profile
NDP (QC)
View Jonathan Genest-Jourdain Profile
2013-05-28 17:31 [p.17175]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech on the bill regarding a National Charities Week by showing how the government has gradually transferred many of its fundamental responsibilities to the private sector.
Over the years, during my brief experience in the House, I have noticed the government's trend of transferring responsibilities, as well as withdrawing and, at the very least, attempting to distance itself from its obligations to provide services to Canadians.
Strange as it may seem, the government is attempting to transfer its own responsibilities to paragovernmental bodies that are not accountable to Canadians. I will provide evidence of this in my speech. The House will therefore be in a position to draw its own conclusions.
Although we cannot but welcome efforts to increase charitable donations, we must carefully look at the impact of the proposed measures on federal revenues, on the total amount of donations and on their distribution, in light of the current political situation.
Based on my experience as deputy aboriginal affairs critic, I have noticed that the government blindly delegates the implementation parameters for public policy measures. Once again this morning, when I attended the meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, members were dealing with the issue of safe drinking water on first nations reserves.
The evidence provided by the witnesses who had been invited to appear this morning reflected the government’s barely concealed desire to transfer its obligations to agencies and bodies that are rarely accountable to the general public, even though band councils are accountable to members of the first nations.
In this case, the Canadian government is trying to transfer its own obligations to band councils, by virtue of the fiduciary relationship that the Crown has with first nations. Moreover, it is doing so without necessarily transferring the budget envelope that should go along with it.
This kind of reasoning is applicable in many other areas, not just aboriginal affairs. Over the years, we have seen the Conservatives simply trying to shift that weight and pass it on to others. Certain highly controversial issues can often be seen in a positive light by some. Ultimately, they are covered by the media and taken up by international bodies.
In this case, we are talking about safe drinking water, but in terms of charities, we are talking about the delivery of services to Canadians. This puts the government in a more or less favourable light. That is why the government is distancing itself, or at least why there is a very clear desire to do so in this case.
In this speech, I will give concrete examples that support this position and that show how the government’s desire and these distancing measures we see day after day are detrimental. I cannot speak to the past but, over the two years that I have been here, I have observed the government’s gradual withdrawal. This will have a negative impact on all Canadians.
Considering the unstable economic situation in Canada, it is important to condemn the government’s gradual withdrawal from the provision of services to Canadians. The government needs to maintain social programs and make further investments in them to reduce the visible strain on the charitable sector and prevent essential government services from being replaced by charities.
This is especially true because charities, just like first nations, do not necessarily have the budget envelope to provide services to the public. They are not always accountable; this depends on how closely they are tied to government bodies. Some charitable organizations are simply not accountable. How convenient for them.
Finally, the government has divested itself of highly controversial areas. It can simply say that it is no longer responsible for these areas since another organization has taken charge of the whole thing.
I would now like to delve into my own personal experience. I often discuss issues at the empirical level and today will be no different.
Coming back to my own practice, as a lawyer working for legal aid and also as a private counsel, when I opened my own office in August or September 2010, I occasionally worked on a voluntary basis, in order to increase the glamour and build a reputation as an ethical lawyer. In legal parlance, the Latin term pro bono is used for this. The Barreau du Québec and the other bar associations just about everywhere in the country strongly urge their members to work pro bono, that is, to work on a voluntary basis.
When I worked on criminal cases, or even more obviously, when I provided services to clients with mental health needs, it sometimes happened that the clients were not eligible for legal aid for financial or other reasons.
In some cases, the process was already under way, and as the case progressed I realized that legal aid had refused its assistance. I was still responsible for these cases. I simply decided to continue providing my services to the client. I did not do it in order to gain some financial reward or for a mercenary purpose, but because my help was needed. In addition, no other lawyer would have taken on these cases free of charge. So I provided these services for no personal benefit.
I would like to come back to one point regarding charities. When you work on a voluntary basis or pro bono, disinterest must always be kept in mind. You do not do the work with profit in mind. The primary reason for working on a voluntary basis or pro bono is to ensure that everyone benefits from one’s services and skills.
In my own case, this was quite beneficial, because my reputation grew, and I like to think this was one of the inducements or at least one of the elements that led to my election in 2011. People were already aware of my pro bono work and the fact that I provided services free of charge for people who were poor and vulnerable.
To come back to this notion of disinterest, some lawyers who call themselves “first nation specialists” often lurk around band councils with the idea of making a profit. Some lawyers will say that they are doing pro bono work on a case. Strangely enough, these are the same people who will demand $100,000 per month from Indian bands. This is not really what pro bono means. I would like to make an aside to discuss another Latin expression: obiter dictum. This means that I am saying something in passing.
In summary, when you perform work on a pro bono basis, you have to keep in mind that there will be no payment for the work. I would like to send this message to my friends the first nation specialists.
Finally, it is important to point out that the best approach to the matter under consideration is to implement a comprehensive, consistent, long-term charity policy. Beyond the ostentatious aspect of the issue, it may be worthwhile to assess the entire matter in light of the Conservatives’ double-talk.
Beneath a facade of magnanimity and compassion, supported by expensive marketing hype, the actual implementation of their policies means gaps in funding and targeted attacks on agencies that hold positions that clash with government policy.
This can be seen in bodies other than charitable organizations. The government looks down on some agencies, bodies and band councils and even certain clans that are moderately favourable or freethinking, that are able to express their own position. Strangely, they can also experience a gap in funding, and the government speaks contemptuously about them.
I will repeat my own words. At a meeting with first nations that was meant to be historic, some groups ended up on the sidewalk and were treated as undesirables. In that case and in the case of certain charitable organizations, there has been some cherry picking over the years. Some organizations have had their funding cut because they were not conspicuously favourable to the ideas expressed or at least because they took positions that came into conflict with the ideology of this government.
Clearly, in 2013, the Conservatives have a poor idea of freedom of expression and freethinkers.
I submit this respectfully.
View Lawrence MacAulay Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Lawrence MacAulay Profile
2013-05-24 11:54 [p.16982]
Mr. Speaker, the government is in the process of selling the Montague post office building as well as another important government building in Summerside.
The Montague building has served as a focal point for the town for decades. The sale of the building would eliminate the last remaining presence of the federal government from the town and would have resounding effects throughout eastern Prince Edward Island.
I ask the government to immediately halt the sale of these buildings and the march toward eliminating the federal government presence on Prince Edward Island.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the CRA is always looking for ways to improve its efficiency and the services that it delivers to Canadians. The creation of a second T3 processing site is in line with CRA best practices and would allow CRA to maintain a high standard of service for Canadians.
CRA identified Summerside as an ideal location as it provides access to existing expertise and state-of-the-art facilities.
View André Bellavance Profile
Ind. (QC)
View André Bellavance Profile
2013-05-10 12:02 [p.16658]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has obtained a copy of an internal memorandum in which the government informs Passport Canada employees that Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Service Canada will be responsible for issuing passports effective July 2. More and more responsibilities are being handed over to Service Canada, which, because of the cuts, is already unable to adequately meet the needs of the unemployed and seniors, and which, in some cases, only provides a voice mail message as support.
How can the government ensure that access to passport services and the quality of those services will be maintained if it gives Service Canada more work to do?
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Rick Dykstra Profile
2013-05-10 12:03 [p.16658]
Mr. Speaker, this is all about improving services for Canadians and making them more convenient and more accessible. In fact, the ministry already determines and issues citizenships, so it only makes sense that the passport program would actually come under the same portfolio.
Over time, we are actually going to be able to improve the service. At service kiosks across this country, Canadians will be able to apply for their passports in a much more timely and broader manner.
View André Bellavance Profile
Ind. (QC)
View André Bellavance Profile
2013-05-10 12:03 [p.16658]
Mr. Speaker, the facts contradict the parliamentary secretary. A meeting was held yesterday for employees of the Jonquière passport office. The reorganization and possible closure of their office was on the agenda. That is a far cry from the promised improvement that the parliamentary secretary spoke about.
I imagine that employees at the Quebec City, Montreal and Gatineau offices were told the same thing. Publicly, the government talks about increasing the number of passport offices, but in its internal memorandum, it talks about administrative savings, attrition and job cuts. Canadians and employees are entitled to the truth.
Does the government plan on closing the Jonquière, Quebec City, Montreal and Gatineau passport offices?
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Rick Dykstra Profile
2013-05-10 12:04 [p.16658]
Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that Canadians are not going to experience any service interruptions whatsoever during this time frame. They will continue to have access to passport services at all of the same locations currently available in the country, and as I indicated, we are actually going to be able to expand those services in the near future.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 1229--
Mr. Ted Opitz:
With regard to passport services, what would it cost the government, on an annual basis, to provide free passport services to veterans as defined in subsection 2(1) of the War Veterans Allowance Act, their spouses or common-law partners and to members of the RCMP and their spouses or common-law partners?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, although Passport Canada is unable to estimate the financial impact of providing free passport services to veterans and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police together with their spouses or common-law partners, it is expected that the loss of revenue would be significant.
As a cost-recovery agency, Passport Canada does not receive an annual parliamentary appropriation and finances its operations entirely on the fees charged for passports and other travel documents. In effect, the Canadian passport program is funded by applicants, not taxpayers.
For this reason, lost revenues would need to be subsidized by means of an increase to the adult and child passport fees for other applications. In order to evaluate the precise impact of such a decision, Passport Canada would need to undertake an 18- to 24-month consultation process, in accordance with the User Fees Act.

Question No. 1231--
Mr. Ted Opitz:
With regard to the development of affordable housing for Canadians, what would it cost the government, on an annual basis, to exempt affordable rental and non-profit housing from the Goods and Services Tax?
Response
Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, residential rents are already exempt under the GST, meaning that the GST is not charged on residential rents paid by tenants. The Tax Expenditures and Evaluations 2012 report indicates that the exemption for residential rent reduced government revenues by about $1.3 billion in 2012.
Qualifying non-profit organizations, or NPOs—i.e., non-profit organizations that receive at least 40% of their total revenue through government funding or charities—are entitled to recover 50% of the GST they pay in respect of certain types of housing. This situation occurs when more than 10% of the residential units in the housing complex are intended for certain groups, such as seniors, youths, students, individuals with a disability, individuals in distress or in need of assistance, or individuals whose eligibility for occupancy or rent amount is dependent on a means or income test.
When charities or qualifying NPOs submit rebate claims for GST paid to the Canada Revenue Agency, they are not required to provide any information on the purchases that gave rise to the rebate entitlement. They just claim a rebate for 50% of the GST they paid on eligible purchases. Therefore, data are not sufficiently detailed to provide for the determination of the portion of the existing rebate that relates to this type of housing. While the value of the total rebate for charities and qualifying NPOs is known and was $355 million in 2012, there is no way to know what portion is attributable to housing for the underprivileged.
Depending on how affordable rental or non-profit housing is defined, providing full GST relief could result in substantial additional fiscal cost to the Government of Canada.

Question No. 1233--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regard to the passport services set out in the schedule of the Passport Services Fees Regulations, what would it cost the government, on an annual basis, to charge those 65 years of age or more, 50% of the fee set out in column 2 for the services set out in column 1?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Passport Canada estimates that charging those 65 years of age or more 50% of the fee for passport services could result in a loss of $225 million in revenue over a four year period. In the event of an increase in the proportion of Canadians over the age of 65 or an increase in demand from that portion of the population, this number could rise.
As a cost-recovery agency, Passport Canada does not receive an annual parliamentary appropriation and finances its operations entirely on the fees charged for passports and other travel documents. In effect, the Canadian passport program is funded by applicants, not taxpayers.
For this reason, lost revenues would need to be subsidized by means of an increase to the adult and child passport fees for other applications. In order to evaluate the precise impact of such a decision, Passport Canada would need to undertake an 18- to 24-month consultation process in accordance with the User Fees Act.

Question No. 1234--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regard to services provided for new Canadians, what would it cost the government, on annual basis, to reopen 19 local Citizen and Immigration Offices throughout Canada and reverse any reduction in staff at the central call centre?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the loss in savings would be $5.2 million annually, starting in 2014-15.
There are no reductions in the staff at the Citizenship and Immigration Canada call centre.

Question No. 1235--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regard to protected persons, refugee claimants and other individuals not eligible for provincial health insurance, what would it cost the government, on an annual basis, to reverse any changes to the Interim Federal Health Program that took effect on June 30, 2012?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with the changes to the interim federal health program, the government expects to save approximately $100 million over the next five years. If the changes were reversed, the government would lose these savings.

Question No. 1237--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the Good and Services Tax, what would it cost the government, on an annual basis, to add to Part II of schedule VI of the Excise Tax Act, regarding zero-rated supplies, a supply of batteries purchased at a pharmacy or retail store that includes a pharmacy and is installed by a person employed by the pharmacy or is purchased from and installed by a medical practitioner, for a medical and assistive device described in Part II of schedule VI of the Excise Tax Act?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, relief from the Goods and Services Tax, GST, is provided for certain medical devices that are specially designed to assist an individual. To ensure that the benefits of this relief are targeted to individuals in need of assistance, the approach has been to relieve only those items that are designed to be purchased and used by individuals with a chronic illness or disease or a disability. Parts, accessories or attachments that are specially designed for use with tax-free medical devices are also eligible for GST relief.
As part of this relief, batteries that are specially designed for use with a tax-free medical device are eligible to be acquired GST-free, as has been the case since the GST was established in 1991. General purpose batteries have many potential uses and are not considered to be specially designed parts, accessories or attachments for tax-free medical devices. As a result, general purpose batteries do not qualify for this GST relief.
There is no information of sufficient detail on use of general purpose batteries in medical and assistive devices and their costs. Accordingly, there are no data that would allow for reliably determining the cost to the government of zero-rating these goods.
Specifically, the Department of Finance does not have information on the types and numbers of batteries that would be purchased for use in medical devices. Further, the prices of batteries that can be used in medical devices can range from a few dollars for an AA battery to potentially hundreds of dollars for larger-capacity batteries similar to car batteries. As a result, there is no feasible way to estimate the cost of this proposal and its impact on the government’s fiscal framework.

Question No. 1241--
Mr. François Choquette:
With regard to the chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing and shale gas extraction: (a) what chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing and shale gas extraction in Canada or the United States that are being evaluated or will be evaluated by Environment Canada are not on the Domestic Substances List (DSL); (b) of the chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing and shale gas extraction in Canada or the United States that are being evaluated or will be evaluated by Environment Canada, which ones are substances subject to the provisions on significant new activities under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; (c) what chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing and shale gas extraction in Canada or the United States that are being evaluated or will be evaluated by Environment Canada have been added or will be added to the DSL; and (d) are any of the chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing and shale gas extraction in Canada and/or the United States that are being evaluated or will be evaluated by Environment Canada identified as persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention of 2004 and, (i) if yes, what are they, (ii) what is Environment Canada doing to comply with the Stockholm Convention?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, petroleum drilling and production primarily falls under provincial jurisdiction, except on federal land. Environment Canada has the authority to regulate the environmental impacts of oil and gas development throughout Canada. Environment Canada’s role and authorities in relation to pollution prevention and habitat protection are provided for in a number of statutes, in particular the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, known as CEPA 1999, and the Fisheries Act.
Environment Canada has a number of initiatives under way toward gaining a better understanding of the substances used in hydraulic fracturing fluid and the potential environmental risks associated with the hydraulic fracturing process. At this time, the department is working with industry to confirm the identity of chemicals that are used in hydraulic fracturing in Canada. Once the department obtains this information, it will be in a better position to conduct detailed and targeted analyses based on the chemicals that have been reported. Results of these analyses will serve as a basis to determine whether further action is required from an environmental protection and/or human health perspective.
In the meantime, substances not on the domestic substances list continue to be subject to notification and assessment under the New Substance Notification Regulations (Chemicals and Polymers) under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
Of the more than 17,000 new substances notifications received since 1994, approximately 30 notifications have been received for substances potentially used for hydraulic fracturing in Canada, although this potential use was not always specified in the information provided. None of these substances are identified as persistent organic pollutants. Canada is committed to upholding the Stockholm convention.
Of these approximately 30 notifications, there have been three substances that have had a ministerial condition imposed on them that restricts the manner in which the substance can be disposed of. Details may be found at http://canadagazette.gc.ca/archives/p1/2005/2005-02-26/html/notice-avis-eng.html, http://canadagazette.gc.ca/archives/p1/2006/2006-04-15/html/notice-avis-eng.html and http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2008/2008-10-04/html/notice-avis-eng.html.
View Linda Duncan Profile
NDP (AB)
View Linda Duncan Profile
2013-05-02 17:40 [p.16244]
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoyed being on committee with my colleague. He does drop in from time to time. He just cannot stay away from the estimates.
I have two questions for the hon. member.
I did take the time to go through this bill. I have a question for him on something that puzzles me. I would appreciate his explaining to me, in division 16, amendments to section 227 of Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, why these needed to be amended and put in the bill.
My second question is about the previous comments that were made by his colleague about the temporary foreign worker program. I come from the same province, and I must say that the feedback I am getting on the temporary foreign worker program does not appear to be the same as the member is getting, but then again I do not just consult with corporations, which is where he said he consulted.
I wonder if the member could advise me as to whether or not, in bringing forward these amendments, the government has consulted widely with organizations such as the Alberta Federation of Labour, which has done some extensive analyses and given support to temporary foreign workers. Has he consulted with churches? I have heard from the Lutheran Church and the Anglican Church. They are very upset about this program and the lack of support for temporary foreign workers.
I have also been told that the supposed new provision to analyze future work plans for a company always had to be provided. It is not a new provision. It was just never enforced.
View Mike Wallace Profile
CPC (ON)
View Mike Wallace Profile
2013-05-02 17:41 [p.16245]
Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure why the member would be opposed to the changes in division 16. Those members talk about working together here in the House, and here we have division 16, the proposed amendments that would allow the minister to seek both specific and general approval from the Governor in Council from public works for tools and services to help other jurisdictions, particularly in the purchasing area. The actual change would allow the Minister of Public Works to have more flexibility when it comes to working with municipalities and provinces on procurement issues, so that we can provide services to those organizations in a more efficient and effective way.
I am not exactly sure why those members are opposed to that, but that is what it would do. Maybe it needs to be explained. I am sure somebody from the Department of Finance would be happy to explain it to the member.
The other issue was about temporary foreign workers. We have been clear that the temporary foreign worker program has a role to play in this country, that there are parts of this country that need support and that there are companies having trouble finding employees. We recognize that there are some issues and, as with any government program, there are abuses sometimes. We have to make sure those abuses are eliminated or at least minimized to the absolutely greatest possible extent, and that is exactly what we are doing. I am assuming that those members are supportive of that.
View Claude Patry Profile
BQ (QC)
View Claude Patry Profile
2013-04-25 14:01 [p.15909]
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 2, protestors heeded the call from Mouvement action chômage, ASTUCE, unions affiliated with the CSN and the FTQ, and the Quebec public service union for a funeral procession through the streets of Alma.
They came to my constituency office with flowers and a coffin to mark the death of the board of referees and umpires.
There is good reason for the unemployed in my region to be grieving. The Social Security Tribunal, based in Ottawa, will be handling all claims now. Hearings in the regions, where complainants could attend in person, will disappear bit by bit.
The protestors' message was clear: if the government thinks it can quash opposition to its reform by doing away with the board of referees and umpires, it will soon realize that advocacy groups for the unemployed are alive and well and will do everything they can to defend the rights of the unemployed. They will always have my support.
Results: 1 - 15 of 403 | Page: 1 of 27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data