Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 11323
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
Obviously, we in the NDP were also disturbed when we learned from media reports that almost the entire Liberal caucus had given a portion of its parliamentary funding to a company called Data Sciences, which is in part responsible for running the Liberalist database. Another company, NGP VAN, is also paid by the Liberal Party of Canada to run the database.
The lines have been blurred; this is a grey area. People are rightly asking questions. Is the Liberal Party of Canada spending parliamentary funds on a database that it uses for partisan purposes? It is entirely appropriate for us to ask that question, especially since Data Sciences is owned by Thomas Pitfield, a personal friend of the Prime Minister. It feels as though the record got stuck at the same spot and history is repeating itself: the Liberals are helping friends of the Liberal Party and making no bones about reportedly using taxpayer money to do so.
Questions have to be asked. The facts have to come out. No stone should be left unturned in getting to the truth.
We agree that Mr. Pitfield should appear as a witness. We need to hear from him. We have questions for him. However, we don't want this to turn into a free-for-all or some flagrantly partisan spectacle. In light of the unanswered questions before us, we think two hours with Mr. Pitfield would probably be long enough to ask the necessary questions, and obtain the clarity and information to either reassure Canadians or worry them even more.
We are amenable to the motion that was put forward by the member and is currently before the committee, but we would like it to specify that the committee will hold only one meeting on the subject. With only one witness, two hours should be plenty of time for the committee to examine the issue. We are not interested in spending all summer on this. It would be a misuse of taxpayer money to drag this out doggedly if the issue could be dealt with in two hours.
We are in favour of holding one meeting with Mr. Pitfield as the witness.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
I do, indeed, have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Liberals' amendment is in English only. Is there a French version? If not, it is out of order, in my view.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Chair, despite the Liberal members' claims that they want the committee to use its time wisely and that they don't want to talk and talk, it's obvious that they continue to go on and on. We are almost out of time, Mr. Chair.
I think Mrs. Shanahan's amendment has merit in that I agree with the substance and overall intent. The Board of Internal Economy can be an effective mechanism, but it can also be a black hole. If you get too close, it sucks you in and you're never to be seen from again.
Mainly, I think the amendment is premature. I want to come back to the spirit of the original motion. Let's hear from the witnesses, ask questions and do some checking. Then, if the matter needs to be referred to the Board of Internal Economy, we can make that informed decision.
Mr. Fergus said some compelling things earlier. He said that the databases had to be stand-alone systems, that they did not communicate with one another. Unfortunately, we have to take his word for it now, so let's bring the people who have the information before the committee, let's look into the situation and let's do our job. If it turns out we need to involve the Board of Internal Economy, we can do so at that point.
Although I agree with the substance of the amendment, I feel to adopt it now would be to get ahead of ourselves.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I'm okay with that proposal.
I would also just point out that on March 8, at that committee, I had asked the deputy to provide information related to the government's tracking of the application of the paragraph 179(b) exemption with dual intent, after the government had indicated that it has given special notice around the use of dual intent. Ms. Tapley indicated that she would get back to the committee with respect to the changes they have seen and the tracking of that information.
We still have not received that information for the committee, so I wonder if the committee chair could follow that up with the deputy, get that information and share it with committee members.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all of our witnesses today. This is incredibly compelling testimony and very important information for us to be gathering from you. The question that I really want to understand and maybe get quite a bit of clarity on if I could, is the current context we're in.
Of course, we know right now that we are in the middle of a COVID-19 pandemic. Different places around the world are responding differently and are at different points in recovery from that, but we also know that the United States is pulling out and that Canada's pulling out after spending a significant investment in Afghanistan, after spending significant time talking about the importance of ensuring that rights for women and girls are protected, for example.
I'm just wondering. Has this violence against both the Hazara and the Sikh populations...? What does it look like? Has it gone up significantly? Has the increase been significant? How much of that is related to COVID? The challenges around COVID, is that providing cover for what's being done by the Taliban? How much of that is because of the withdrawal? I would like to get an understanding of the context in terms of the withdrawal and COVID-19, the global pandemic.
Mr. Maley, if I could start with you that would be wonderful.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Mr. Ajimal, would you perhaps like to jump in?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you very much for that.
What I'm also hearing from you, and that we've heard from all of the witnesses today, is that the urgency for Canada and other international bodies to act is very pressing because of course it is not a matter of if. It is a matter of when. At the point that we're right now, does Canada have a role to play in terms of the peace process, in terms of what's happening on the ground, in terms of protecting minorities in Afghanistan as part of that?
We have heard that Canada needs to do more, particularly once COVID is done, in terms of bringing people to Canada and allowing people to settle in Canada and make their homes here. Do we have a role to play in Afghanistan during this peace process, and what is that role?
Mr. Ajimal, maybe you would have something you could present on that?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you.
Mr. Ibrahimi, do you want to add anything to that? I know that I'm running out of time.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Yes. I'll cede my time.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you.
This is not new information, of course, that we're receiving, but I am just really struggling to understand, particularly when we hear that the Canadian government has been able to implement some of these immigration policies for other groups, why they are so reluctant to do so for Afghani minorities. It's deeply concerning and something that we need to continue to push them on.
As the NDP member of this committee, I think this will probably be our last opportunity. I wondered whether or not it would make sense for us to just go through and have people.
Is there anything that we have not covered in the meeting today that you would like to share with the committee, that you would like to make sure gets on record, or anything that we haven't asked you that you'd like to share with us? I'd be happy to open up the microphone for you to do that.
Go ahead, Mr. Maley.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you very much.
I have a few more seconds. I will now hand it over to Ms. Bhullar.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Ms. Bhullar.
Finally, we'll go to Ms. Chiovenda.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you very much.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
I'm sorry to interrupt, but I believe it's a 15-minute bell.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
The bells have not gone off yet, but they will likely go any minute now.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I raised a point of order, Mr. Chair. The Conservatives have not been in power for six years. We would like the minister to answer our questions rather than making partisan speeches.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I also want to wish you a happy birthday. Someday we will celebrate together, I'm sure.
I would like to welcome the minister and Mr. Gallivan.
I'm going to continue in the same vein as Mr. Ste‑Marie.
We are talking about thousands of Canadians, victims who have lost all their life savings. We know very well that in the frauds committed by Norshield and Mount Real, there are thousands of Canadians who lost everything. The system has never got justice for them.
Minister, you have been the minister for six years. What do you say to the victims, like Janet Watson who appeared before the committee, who say that the government has done absolutely nothing to protect them or to bring the guilty parties to justice?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I would like to get back to the question of the Panama Papers, the Bahama Leaks and the Paradise Papers.
All those papers, which are publicly available, contain almost 6,000 numbers of Canadian companies and names of Canadian individuals who benefited from a whole range of tax loopholes outside Canada.
It's a simple question: how many of those companies and those individuals, who have been named for six years now, have been charged? How many of them have been convicted?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
You have not answered my question.
Mr. Gallivan, how many charges have been laid? How many convictions have there been?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
That means that there have been no charges or convictions concerning the Isle of Man; no convictions relating to the Panama Papers; none in connection with the Bahama Leaks; and none concerning the Paradise Papers.
There have therefore been no convictions in six years.
You said in this committee in 2016 that we were talking about measures taken to get information about electronic funds transfers. Regarding the CRA's audits of electronic funds transfers in excess of $10,000, how many files are now subject to criminal prosecution? How many convictions are there?
We see Cinar, and we see the lack of action with the Isle of Man scam. We see that there have been absolutely no charges ever levied in all of these very clear violations of our tax code. I remind the minister, of course, of the comments made by Brigitte Unger, professor of economics, who said that this is effectively stealing money from public coffers, yet we see no action at all.
When it comes to electronic funds transfers, how many files are now subject to criminal prosecution?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
It's to the minister.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
It's simple; there has been a total failure for six years. There have been no prosecutions and no convictions.
I would like to ask you another question.
Tax audited files reported to the CRA by the criminal prosecution service have decreased over the last 10 years by 86%. Could the minister explain, when there's been no success in any of these areas we've just talked about, why even the tax audit files forwarded by the CRA to the Canadian criminal prosecution service have decreased by such a substantial amount, 86% since just before her term?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I want to get back to the revelations this morning about wealthy Canadians, the ultra-rich with fortunes of tens of millions of dollars. Over the course of the past six years under your mandate, Madam Minister, there has not been a single charge laid around income tax evasion.
Why have the ultra-rich in this country been treated under your ministry with kid gloves?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
You have not laid any charges or got any convictions.
There are absolutely no prosecutions, no convictions. We have seen it in so many cases. We have these victims like Janet Watson who have lost their life savings in the Cinar fraud, the Mount Real fraud or the Northshield fraud.
The government and you as minister have both the Income Tax Act and the Inquiries Act. You have two tools to call a public inquiry into this, to get to the bottom of it and to get justice for the victims.
Why do you consistently refuse to use the tools that you have to put in place a public inquiry so that the victims can get justice?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I think we probably have about 45 minutes. I believe that Mr. Ste-Marie wants to come back to an issue as well.
I've already circulated the motion and I'll read it for the record and then add an amendment just to facilitate things. This is following discussions with Mr. Sorbara. I move:
That the Committee request that the government initiate a public inquiry under the Income Tax Act—
I would add “or the Inquiries Act”.
—to investigate tax planning by KPMG, or any of its subsidiaries, in the Isle of Man, the possible involvement of the sword companies Shashqua, Katar, Sceax, Spatha and Parrhesia corporations, and to investigate tax fraud in the Cinar, Norshield and Mount Real cases and any possible links with the KPMG Isle of Man tax planning and/or Isle of Man's sword companies, and that this be reported to the House.
I'm adding “or the Inquiries Act” because that gives the government the scope to use either tool, and since there is some dispute around the use of the Income Tax Act, my interpretation—and I would certainly agree with Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Lareau on that—is that it gives the government a broader scope to use the tool that is most appropriate.
The most important thing here is that we know from the testimony we had from Janet Watson, from the really important journalism we've seen both with Enquête on Radio-Canada and also from The Fifth Estate on CBC that thousands of Canadians were defrauded. That money was taken overseas. We have a responsibility and we've undertaken to get to the bottom of it as much as we can, but to date, we have asked KPMG many questions and have received often evasive or incorrect responses or no responses at all.
Therefore, I believe that given what we know and that we all share an interest in getting to the bottom of this and we all share an interest in seeking justice for the victims of these colossal frauds—half a billion dollars, and people losing their life's savings. You can only imagine somebody who saved up, like Janet Watson did, $68,000 of her life savings and lost it all due to this fraud.
I believe we have a responsibility to pass this motion. Ultimately, it is a request, but it does seek justice for the victims, and I believe that's what every member of this committee wants to see as well.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
That would be with that modification, Mr. Chair, “under the Income Tax Act or the Inquiries Act”.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I have a point of personal privilege, Wayne.
This doesn't often work well on Zoom, but I would like to wish you a very happy birthday and thank you for all your amazing work as our chair.
An hon. member: Group hug.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you so much, Chair.
I'd like to start out by commending Madame Oko for her strength and sharing the story about caring about her parents. I also looked after my parents when they were both sick many years ago and I know the toll it takes in trying to make sure that your parents have care that allows them to live in dignity. Thank you so much for sharing your story.
Madame Majowski, thank you as well for your tremendous knowledge and work. My first question is to you.
For years, advocates in the disability community, including seniors, have advocated for better supports for disabled persons so that they can live with dignity. Unfortunately, in my opinion, I don't think the rights of disabled persons were a priority for this government or previous governments before the pandemic or during the pandemic.
Today, the day before the House rises and we're adjourning for summer—we have a potential election in the fall—finally this government introduced legislation to create a Canada disability benefit, known as Bill C-35, something that I hope sees the light of day, but I'm not very hopeful. To me, this piece of legislation should have been a top priority if we look at some of the statistics that we've witnessed during the pandemic.
I'm wondering if you can speak about how both persons with disabilities and disabled seniors in particular have been disproportionately impacted during the pandemic.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Going back to the question of poverty, in 2012 Statistics Canada reported that 12.1% of older Canadians were living at a low income and that by 2016 the number had increased to 14.5%. That goes to your point that we're not taking better care of our seniors; in fact, they're going into deeper levels of poverty. On top of that, the pandemic also revealed the extent to which Canada forces seniors into vulnerable and unlivable conditions.
I present this question to both of you. It's just a question. I put forward a motion for a guaranteed livable basic income. How do you think this would benefit seniors?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you so much, Chair.
My question is for Madam Oko.
Certainly the pandemic has shone a light on the glaring inequities and inequalities, and certainly targeted inequalities, in this country. I would say that seniors are one of the groups that have been targeted or ignored even prior to the pandemic. Had we ensured that seniors lived in dignity, we wouldn't have found ourselves in this situation in the first place. I think it relates to ageism and the idea that when you reach a certain age, you are no longer of value. They are the kinds of ideas that are associated with the concept of working—that when you are no longer working full time, you lose your value.
I was really touched by the story you were telling about caring for your mom. We've heard comments like “COVID-19 isn't too dangerous, because it's just impacting older people.” We heard a lot of shocking things like that.
Can you speak to how ageism played a role in the responses to COVID-19 and how it has impacted many of the seniors that you're talking about today?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you so much, Chair.
I'd like to welcome Mr. Mackie, a fellow Manitoban, to the committee today.
I have some questions for Madame Guerin on affordable and accessible social housing.
In my riding in Winnipeg Centre, many seniors are on the verge of being unsheltered—a real threat, a real reality—as a result of not being able to afford housing. Can you speak a bit more about the importance of affordable, accessible social housing as one of the most important social determinants of health?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
I really appreciate what you've shared, particularly about choice. I know we've had many witnesses come to committee who have talked about widening options so that seniors can choose if they want to be at home or in a long-term care facility. They have talked about opening things up so people actually have a choice. Having a choice is really important for people to maintain their dignity and independence, particularly as we age and particularly for women.
Speaking about women, we know that women, as they age, live at disproportionately higher levels of poverty than men. They are not eligible for pensions, for example. Their care work is often not paid.
How has poverty disproportionately impacted seniors during the pandemic?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
To follow up with that, one of the things I've been pushing for is a guaranteed livable basic income. Could you speak about the importance of ensuring that all seniors have a livable income?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Do you have anything to add on the importance of having a livable income?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you so much.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Mackie.
You spoke a lot about the conditions of social isolation and the impacts of social isolation during the pandemic. How does your organization assist with combatting the social isolation of seniors?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
One of the things we've discussed a lot in committee is the importance of technology, especially during the pandemic, when people can't meet in person. Would it be helpful to get support for participants so they can participate should they have, for example, issues with accessing the Internet or computers?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Just build on that. Thank you.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you so much.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Yes, sure.
I'm going to turn to Madam Guerin.
In terms of technology, you talked a little bit about social isolation. One of the things I've been talking about is making Wi-Fi a public service. Would you agree that this would be helpful with seniors?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you so much.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Chair, and I want to thank all of you for your testimony. I think the history of indigenous women being trafficked is Canadian history that goes so far back. I think of my granny, who was in residential school and at 16 got married off to a carpenter in the community who was significantly older than she was. I remember hearing that story and thinking, “That explains some things.”
I want to thank you all for telling that story, and for also understanding how systemic it is in our system.
My first question is going to come to you, Karen. You talked about the government cutting money while you're being asked to do even more. I heard testimony from everyone about the lack of resources and not knowing where to put people who are trying to escape trafficking.
I wonder if I could come to you first, Karen, and then I will come to you, Madame Gobert, because I haven't heard from you yet. I would love to have you answer that question, and then I'll continue on.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you for that.
Ms. Perrier, you talked about people having to stay in your house because there's nowhere to send them. I'm curious as to whether you could talk about the concern you have around a limit of resources and not having a place to send folks so that they are safe.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Chair. I will go to Trisha.
You didn't get a chance to answer my question, and I will frame it specifically for you, based on your previous testimony.
You talked about the area where trafficked indigenous persons are and the fact that the aboriginal housing is right there. The services are a couple of blocks away, and they're staying in that area because they don't have an alternative.
When we talked about having the resources to support people who are trying to get out, you talked about the ability to leave and how beneficial resources are for you. Do you see a gap there in this particular case?
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 11:29
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. May, for your work here on this bill. We support it, as New Democrats, and, in fact, we would go much farther. In fact, in 2009, my private member's bill passed in the House 247 to 18 on the automotive aftermarket, and it's now a voluntary agreement. Then former minister Clement was able to work with the industry, being the automotive sector and the aftermarket, and that agreement needs to be updated as well.
What would you suggest in terms of this bill here that would advance.... It's not just rights for consumers. You noticed that the environment and consumer protectionism are there. What would you suggest your message would be to all those innovators out there that, once they purchase a product and understand the warranty, if they undermine the warranty, they still don't become a criminal for purchasing a product and then adapting it, changing it, improving it or innovating it? I think this is a key point that shouldn't be lost.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 11:32
It's important to recognize your focus, to some degree, on electronic waste, something we haven't been doing the best job of as our landfills and other types of disposal systems aren't as robust as they probably should be in the market.
Interesting to the auto sector is that we think about the environment and we think about the rights and all those things. However, there was a public safety issue too. Vehicles would be on the road and not in the best condition for travelling, waiting for repairs and so forth. It gets complex.
With regard to electronic waste and going back to that point, can you indicate whether you have had some discussions with third party groups on that? I know that some of this is municipal, because that's where some of it ends up, but has there been any work done on that part of the program and platform yet?
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 11:34
Yes, and measuring what could be improved upon or reduced. Have there been any third parties that have jumped to your quarters just yet? It's still a bit early, but I wonder whether some groups have latched on.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 11:36
Thank you very much for your work on this. It's appreciated.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 11:49
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Go ahead and answer that question, Mr. May. I really don't have any more questions. I'll give you an opportunity to finish the last one. It was a good question by my colleague.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 11:51
As a PlayStation gamer, I really appreciate that example. It's actually perfect. It's a really good example. Thank you.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 12:31
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Congratulations. That's quite an extensive background. Actually, I toured Electronic Arts when I was in Vancouver, probably about seven or eight years ago. It's really interesting. I'm an Apex Legends player. It's a fun thing to do on the side. I really do appreciate the fact that you have this experience, because I think it is going to be about marketing, in a different way, experiences for people.
I was curious as to your discussion about Parks Canada. How valuable are our parks in terms of rebuilding the tourism industry as a destination point, especially for American tourists? Has there been some new data? Are there some strengths that you can see, especially when we try to build back from COVID and the border is eventually, hopefully, reopened?
Is that something that could be exercised very successfully for Canadians to push that, especially with more people doing outdoor stuff because of COVID?
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 12:32
In my destination area, we're trying to build a park. The Rouge was mentioned by my colleague. It's a wonderful national urban park, the first one in Canada. It's tremendous not just for the local community. Other cities are looking at national urban parks.
Do you suspect that would be an asset for tourism if we actually move in that direction? The Prime Minister noted that in the Speech from the Throne. We're seeing places like Edmonton, Windsor and other places push towards national urban parks. Is that something that's been discussed as a potential as we build these out?
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 12:33
What types of input have you had with regard to the process for reopening the border? We're still not going to see much change until July 5, and it will affect Canadians, not Americans. Has there been any consultation with regard to how to support the tourism industry if the government isn't changing any directions?
There should be an amelioration plan for the summer. Have there been any discussions with you and the organization about how to deal with the consequences of not altering the status quo?
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 12:35
Has there been any data or support provided to the government about...? Areas like mine, Windsor West, are not going to be an interprovincial destination for the most part. There will be some who come—they always do—but there won't necessarily be the volumes. Having no border closure changes from the current situation will probably mean a second season.
Have you provided any data or information to the government about the consequences for border communities, like Windsor, that don't have that option? There are other places, of course, such as Sault Ste. Marie, and I could go on and on.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 12:36
I'd ask if you could provide that information to this committee. It would be very helpful for us in our deliberations on the report.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 12:36
Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate your work.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the time.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 12:49
Chair, I'd like to continue with the challenges with the government's decision recently. It's not even based on science. Apparently, the Pfizer vaccine is going to have a different response in a Canadian versus an American. It's left border communities extremely vulnerable, waiting around month after month to find out what's going to happen next.
Has there been any discussion about how there would be some involvement or amelioration by your organization for, I guess, many destinations? My friend from Niagara Falls will feel this. They're basically going to be frozen out of any interprovincial tourism for the most part. Some of it will happen, but some significant American visitation won't be there. Decisions are being made to isolate some tourist destination areas at their expense.
Has there been any discussion about what to do once we finally get some reopening, and will there be some extra consideration to those that are basically sacrificed this year because of a lack of foresight?
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2021-06-22 12:51
There's not much of a team Canada approach if you can't have American visitors. If you're dependent upon American visitors and the focus is going to be on interprovincial travel, you're basically sacrificed at the end of the day.
I just think that, if there's going to be a decision made like that, then organizations that are supported by the government and in the government—that's a different story in itself—need to have a plan to help these places once there is a final opening again. They're going to have to cling to their lives over the next number of months and, hopefully, if they do make it through, organizations that receive government funds are going to do things to help those areas later on, because it's going to be a terrible summer.
You don't have to answer that. It's okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That's my rant.
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for coming before us today and sharing your thoughts.
I want to build from this past conversation. We've had a lot of conversations here at this committee on a variety of issues, but we just finished the study on sexual misconduct in the military. We were talking about women not being hired or brought into the military. The military has been trying to ensure that it has more women, not only as leaders but also just as service people, and ensure that there is a greater mix and that greater attention is drawn to this.
Mrs. Chowdhury, when you talk about getting to know the people within your workplace and ensuring that there is a multicultural workplace, at least at a federal level, there is—
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
I thought I had done that well before.
Within the workplace, of course, the federal government has an employment equity strategy and act, but there continue to be a lot of racism and accountability problems within that Employment Equity Act.
Can you maybe talk about strengthening that equity act? I know it's only at a federal level, but it would have lots of implications for provincial levels as well, by setting that bar or that standard.... What would be the benefits from that investment in under-represented groups and bringing more of them into that Employment Equity Act?
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
In getting rid of a lot of the barriers that people of colour, Muslim people, indigenous people and Black people face, but mainly when we talk about new immigrants and the removal of barriers in terms of the requirements within a specific profession, both of you would see that within your individual professions. Perhaps you could talk about the impact that has on the community as well.
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think that is key, that intersectionality, and understanding it and applying it to the legislation, ideally, that we bring forward. Certainly, legislation on online hate is well overdue and much required.
This is for both of you. I had put forward what was long asked for by the Muslim community, the national action summit on Islamophobia, which hopefully will occur this summer. I'm asking you to maybe each put forward a couple of recommendations that you would like to see come from that summit, and then the actions taken by the government to fulfill them.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I think I managed to put most of my thoughts—for now anyway, not having heard any other discussion—on the record last day and I just want to express some appreciation again for the opportunity to discuss this motion and to the folks over at Fair Vote and all the people who support them who have worked so well over the last while to keep this issue on the radar and to collaborate, in the best sense of that word, in the preparation of this motion.
With that, Madam Chair, I'll cede the floor to my colleagues, and I look forward to hearing their thoughts on the matter.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Perhaps it will be the case that folks on the committee will have what they need in order to participate in the discussion by the time I'm finished my remarks.
What I'd like to say is that I don't think the amendment really contributes to the best spirit of the motion. I think many of my colleagues on the committee will be familiar with the debate around a referendum that was had in a very fulsome way—and I know you are, Madam Chair, having sat on that Special Committee on Electoral Reform.
The referendum was one of the hot topics, if you will. I'm sure colleagues on the committee who bore witness and participated in that process will know that the Special Committee on Electoral Reform did in fact recommend a referendum as part of a way forward. That was a compromise that was forged among many different parties at that time for a parliamentary-led process.
I've always been of the view, and I think New Democrats largely have been of the view, that if a party has an electoral mandate to change the voting system, then a referendum is not necessarily required, and that's part of the [Technical difficulty--Editor] and mandate building that happens in a general election.
In this case what we're talking about is a study of how a citizens' assembly would work. In fact, I think one of the questions the citizens' assembly ought to pronounce itself on is the process for moving ahead with changing the voting system, and that includes the question of the referendum. I think that's a discussion that needs to happen again. I think it should happen in a forum that's less politicized. That's the proposal, anyway, of a citizens' assembly. It's to allow that conversation to happen in a forum that is not led by partisan political actors.
For as much as there was a bit of a compromise forged on the committee last time—and I think we saw a willingness by political players, as it were, to lean on a referendum or to incorporate a referendum in order to get buy-in from many different parties about how to move forward—the citizens' assembly is an alternative way of moving forward. I think if it's going to do its best work, it's important not to prejudice the outcome of that process. I think the nature and virtue...one of the selling features of the citizens' assembly is that it is an open-ended process, where citizens get to engage directly in the policy-making process.
Not only at the outset of launching a citizens' assembly, but if in the very idea of this committee of Parliament studying the notion of a citizens' assembly we're going to already pronounce on a foundational question about what that process looks like, I think we would be making a mistake. There will be lots of time to discuss the value of a referendum. I hope that a citizens' assembly discusses that. There will be need for parliamentary action even after a citizens' assembly, and I'm quite confident there will be an appropriate parliamentary forum for that debate to be had.
I don't think that at this committee at this time, while we're looking at simply studying what a citizens' assembly would look like, it's the appropriate time to already be setting those kinds of constraints on the [Technical difficulty--Editor] to get the most value out of the process. We won't get the most value out of the study on what that process would look like if we've already set tight parameters on key outcomes.
That's why I'm not enthusiastic about this amendment. I wanted to offer those thoughts.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess a brief lesson for everyone on the hazards of speaking before seeing things in writing...as I considered the Conservative amendment, I thought what I heard was a condition requiring a referendum after a national citizens' assembly on their findings. What I see in the amendment as written is that it would simply include the question of a referendum in the questions that the committee would consider as part of its study.
Again, what I said before is true, in that I'm not enthusiastic about the amendment, but I don't think it hurts for the committee to talk about that in the context of their study. My hope would be that they don't put any constraints on the citizens' assembly at the outset, because one of its important virtues is the open-endedness of that process.
I also think that part of the spirit of this motion and the push for a citizens' assembly is exactly to avoid relitigating some of the intractable disputes of the last Parliament's process.
In the spirit of building wider support for this motion and bringing people on board and setting up this study, I would be prepared to support the amendment as simply introducing that question. I do think it's a question that will be settled either way. We will either have a referendum or we won't. It will be part of the conversation both through the committee's study, I'm sure, and also in the context of a citizens' assembly, whether or not to have one.
I would be prepared to support adding this wording if it means we will be building a wider consensus that this is an issue we have to address and a process that we should be embarking upon.
In the best sense of a parliamentary give and take in the debate, having expressed some skepticism about the amendment before, having seen it in writing now and hearing some of the comments, I would be prepared to support the inclusion of the amendment in the motion.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just say that any Canadians who may be listening at home are getting a little bit of a window into some of the deliberations that happen in camera around committee reports. They perhaps are experiencing some of the frustration that members routinely feel in those meetings about the kinds of things that can light up as an issue unexpectedly.
For me, coming from a construction background, [Technical difficulty—Editor] a deck. It's appropriate at the outset to examine the need for a permit. The language isn't prejudicial there. That is to say, if you're examining the need for a permit, it doesn't mean you've already decided you need one. If you're building a deck in the city of Winnipeg that's less than 24 inches above grade, you don't need a permit. The conclusion of your investigation for the need for a permit will be that you don't need one. If the deck that you're building is 24 inches or higher above grade, the conclusion of your examination as to whether or not you need a permit will be that you do need a permit.
To me, the language here isn't too important. What's important is all the other items of the motion. As I say, one of the things I'd like to do is bring as many people along as possible. I think if Liberals on the committee could see their way to appreciating my niche semantic argument, perhaps [Technical difficulty—Editor] bring everyone along in supporting this motion. I think that would be a great thing. I'm happy to leave the wording as is, if that means that our Conservative colleagues will come along.
I do think the question of a referendum is one that any body, whether it's a committee or a citizens’ assembly, will have to tackle in some way, shape or form. I take the Conservative amendment as just indicating the need to address that question. It's fair to flag that. I have no doubt that it will be part of the debate. It was a very important point of debate. Although I have, I think, ultimately some different feelings from my Conservative colleagues on the committee about the necessity of a referendum, I do think that question, whether it's necessary or not, needs to be addressed in any credible effort to change the voting system.
I'm happy to leave the amendment as it is and move on. We've heard that [Technical difficulty—Editor] committee had some [Technical difficulty—Editor] as well. I think Mr. Turnbull foreshadowed what that might be at our last meeting. I'm excited to hear his proposal and perhaps improve the motion in that way as well.
Thank you.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I just want to say that I think the amendment makes a lot of sense in that what we're going to be hearing in the course of this study, should it proceed.... Of course, we would need the motion to pass today, but we also need for there not to be an election in the summer, which is an important point to make as well. My hope would be that if the best thing doesn't happen, which is to not have an election, we might at least see a future procedure and House affairs committee take seriously the intention of this committee to study this issue. However, in the course of the study as it unfolds, we're going to be hearing, for sure, a lot about electoral reform, but I would expect that we are going to hear a lot about citizens' assemblies because the motion is very much about how you would proceed with a citizens' assembly in order to tackle this issue. It would be an alternative to the attempt in the last Parliament that was very much a parliamentary-led Parliament that didn't get the outcome that I know many people who would like to see electoral reform in Canada want.
In the course of that, the committee is going to hear a lot about citizens' assemblies in general, as well as citizens' assemblies for the purpose of electoral reform, having a mandate to file that information in a separate report and share it with Parliament so that it isn't lost. It often happens that, by the end of a study, committee members are something like subject experts, although maybe not to the degree of those who do it for a living. Certainly, one of the great privileges of this job is the opportunity to broaden and deepen our understanding of a range of issues that come before us in our duties as members of Parliament, and members who are part of this study at the end of it will know a lot more than they already do.
Not all of us have done these kinds of citizen engagement processes for a living in the way that Mr. Turnbull has, so at the end of that, we'll probably have some more general reflections on how citizens' assemblies might be able to be used. It's value added for Canadians if we can compile that information and some of those reflections and submit them formally to the House for the government's consideration and the consideration of Canadians at large who are thinking about how government can make better policy in a way that's more citizen-led.
I think this is information that the committee is going to accumulate in the course of its study in any event, and having a way to codify that and make it useful for more people is a better way to proceed. That's why I'm happy to support this amendment.
The other thing I appreciate about this amendment is that it leaves intact all of the important components about the electoral reform piece, and it allows for a detailed report to be submitted on that particular issue, which I know is very important to all of those of us in Canada who really do want to see a different voting system implemented and would appreciate some straightforward recommendations from this committee on that matter specifically.
Thank you.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I guess I'd just like to have the opportunity to respond to some of the debate on the main motion.
First of all, I understand the skepticism about Liberal governments very well, having watched the process unfold in the last Parliament, but the question for people who sincerely want to see voting reform is this: How do we keep the conversation alive, how do we keep it going and how do we reach out to people who obviously have very different political interests and different points of view, in order to try to keep pushing this process forward until it succeeds?
As somebody who is personally very committed to seeing Canada adopt a different electoral system than the first-past-the-post system that we have, which I don't think is serving the country well, I respect that there are different points of view on that, but my point of view is that this voting system is not serving the country well and I would like to see it change. That means continuing to have conversations in Parliament, first of all, and in civil society generally and, hopefully, with some new mechanisms in order to bring more people on board to help understand some of the shortcomings of the current system we have and some of the real potential and opportunities that exist in other systems.
We had a process last Parliament. It didn't work. From the point of view of people who want to see genuine voting reform in Canada, it didn't work, so the question is, instead of just trying to do the same thing over again, how do we try to get to somewhere different?
I note that this motion is largely untouched, except for the amendment that we passed for the Conservatives, which just draws attention to the fact that talking about whether or not to have a referendum is an important component of any conversation about electoral reform. It still requires a separate report on the issue of electoral reform.
That report will be mandated to include terms of reference, what the composition of an assembly should look like, a timeline for completion, public reporting requirements for the assembly and speaking to the question of resources for the assembly, including how to support citizen engagement and not just necessarily the people who are in the assembly itself. It gives the committee latitude to ask if there's something left out in the course of their study, and when they hear from experts [Technical difficulty—Editor] to that report. It has to be filed separately. Even if the committee decides that it's not worth going forward with a national citizens' assembly, at least a report is still required so that there's a determinate end to that study and we know definitively what the opinion of the committee is after having looked at that.
All of that stays the same. All of that is intact. That's a process that I would like to see happen. To then say in addition to that, okay, well let's also take some of the learnings that has happened in the course of that study about how citizen assemblies may or may not be used.... I take some of Mr. Nater's point. I'm certainly an advocate for parliamentary reform. Just this morning, I tabled a private member's bill to try to curtail some of the immense prerogative that the Prime Minister has around prorogation. I have a motion on the Order Paper around the dissolution of Parliament as well, and I'm on this committee in part because of my own interest in all things having to do with parliamentary process.
It may be that the committee says there's no value in citizens' assemblies. I would be surprised at that because, as Ms. Petitpas Taylor pointed out earlier, they're being used to great effect in other places, and I don't think that we as elected people.... Simply because we're elected doesn't mean that there aren't other ways of expressing the voice of Canadian citizens in the policy-making process. We are one. We are an important one. Obviously, Parliament is very important, but it doesn't always work very well. I think that anyone who is being honest can see—in fact, there's some evidence of it even in today's meeting—that partisan interests can derail otherwise good policy discussion. We've certainly seen that in this Parliament in all sorts of ways. I'll spare you all the examples.
The question isn't whether we can agree on everything all the time and everybody is going to sing Kumbaya and love each other at the end of the meeting. The question is, can we leave this meeting having taken a concrete step forward towards trying to get back on track in a process that, yes, some may stall and delay? Although I hope not: I hope everybody is acting in good faith. But if I just assume that everybody is acting in bad faith all the time, we won't make any progress at all either.
So, I'm glad to see that we were able to incorporate an amendment from the Conservative Party into this motion. I'm glad for the proposal by Mr. Turnbull, and I'm happy to support it. At the end of it, we will have an NDP motion with a Conservative amendment and a Liberal amendment pass that allows us to restart a process that was broken in the last Parliament when the government rejected all of the findings, to try and get us back on track towards getting to where we can get out of the first-past-the-post system, a system that—as I said last meeting—is, I think, in no small part responsible for all of the speculation around an election. If the Prime Minister does want an election this summer—and there are a lot of signs that suggest that he does, although I think he would be wrong to call one—it will be because the first-past-the-post system promises him a majority in these circumstances with about 40% in the polls instead of 35%. If that is incentivizing a prime minister to call an election during a pandemic, something is clearly broken, and it's clearly not serving the interests of Canadians well.
There is need for further discussion on that, and there are lessons out of this Parliament and out of the pandemic for how we vote, how we select parliaments and, indeed, how we select governments.
I'm pleased with today's conversation. I want to thank everybody. Despite a little bit of needling, which is par for the course here in Parliament, I think that, overall, we've had a very productive conversation. The motion, ultimately, will be better for it, and I hope that Canadians agree. I hope that Canadians who want to see a change in the voting system will agree. I think that if all parties engage in good faith in the process and the study that's laid out in this motion, we can hope to make some progress. We'll only know at the end of that process whether people engaged in good faith, and Canadians will be able to evaluate for themselves who they think best represented their interest in changing the voting system. However, we'll leave that decision to Canadians. The decision before us today is to embark on this study, and I look forward to making that decision.
Thank you.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much.
I'm quite supportive of the intent of the motion. It's consistent with the amendment that we presented to Bill C-19. Of course, I do want to echo comments that have been made already. I mean, it would be nice to see this coming directly from government. I would rather study it in the context of a bill. I think there is enough knowledge out there. Indigenous peoples have been here and speaking their languages long before Canada was an entity. It's not a mystery that they're here. It's not a mystery that they have their own languages. I think we're finally coming to a place as a country where we're willing to acknowledge that instead of trying to erase that reality.
It's really just a question of a concrete proposal for legislative change. We tried to make that change when it came to Bill C-19, because it appeared to be a way to do it. We know that there will already be a lot of barriers to voting as a result of the pandemic.
With the caveat that I really would like to see the government come forward with something.... If we're not going to be studying this until the fall anyway, that's a lot of time for the government to draft a bill and bring it forward in the fall. That would be [Technical difficulty—Editor] to a simple committee study that doesn't have the ability to then go ahead and enact, in legislation, whatever the conclusions of our study might be.
I'm certainly prepared to support this study, but I would really like to see some leadership from the government in getting it going so that at the end of the study we're changing the law instead of recommending to government that they go away, take more time to figure out how they might draft an amendment, and then have to study it all over again.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I'd like to welcome Minister Lametti and Ms. Campbell to the committee.
We really appreciate having you both here to discuss this nomination process.
Minister Lametti, maybe I'll start with you. I'll just offer congratulations on Bill C-15 having received royal assent yesterday. I had the honour of serving with Romeo Saganash in the previous Parliament, so this has deep, personal meaning to me, as well as to many indigenous people across this country.
The preamble of Bill C-15 talks about how the declaration emphasizes the urgent need to respect the legal systems that indigenous peoples have. Clause 5 of that bill requires that the government take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration.
Within the qualifications and assessment criteria, number one, under “Demonstrated superior knowledge of the law”, says that “knowledge of indigenous legal traditions may also be considered”.
Ms. Campbell, you might want to chime in on this. With respect to qualifications and assessment criteria, under number one, “knowledge of indigenous legal traditions”, can you expand on that a little? I want to know how much that figured into your consideration of applicants given the context we're now operating under in Canada, in which indigenous rights and title are becoming much more prevalent in Canadian society and will certainly be a big part of legal decisions going forward, especially with the passage of Bill C-15.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you to both of you for that.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Campbell, maybe I'll front-load this with two questions and then allow you to answer both.
I take to heart your previous comment about indigenous candidates and the fact that there is increasing representation throughout our court system in Canada.
I guess what I wanted to know, first of all, is whether, in the last several nominations that have happened over the last number of years, including this one, you have seen an improvement in the available pool of qualified indigenous candidates for the Supreme Court who match all of the requirements. Is there an improvement happening in the number of people who could be qualified for that position?
Secondly, every single time we go through this process there's a time for reflection on what worked and what didn't, and you've done a number of these now. Do you have any comments about any improvements that can still be added to this process based on your most recent experience in this nomination?
Thank you.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Minister Cardy, for joining us tonight.
You said that you started being concerned about this in 2018 when you became Minister of Education in New Brunswick. Was this a concern of yours for some time before that? Was action taken by you to either condemn the Confucius Institute or make an issue of it?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I'm interested in New Brunswick, of course, because we're talking about something that has been going on.... For how long has the Confucius Institute been active in New Brunswick?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
In how many schools do they play a role in your public school system?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Would they have also been operating in universities in New Brunswick?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Are you telling us, then, that you based your decision to try to do away with the Confucius Institute not on what you knew about them operating in New Brunswick and what they did there, but on your knowledge of how they operated elsewhere? Is that right?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Okay, so you would have had people complaining to you about things that had happened.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I take it, then, there was a formal relationship, some agreement with the Department of Education that you were working on.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Do you have any idea how this would have started? Was there some sort of economic deal between the New Brunswick government and the Confucius Institute, or China-Beijing, to sponsor these institutes? How did it come about?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Am I right or wrong in assuming that it may have been thought to be benign when that was started?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Aside from the development of this idea of exchanges, was there a lot of interest in New Brunswick in China, or learning the Chinese languages and that sort of thing? Was that something that prompted it, or was that something that just developed as a matter of government policy?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Cardy, in our province, Newfoundland and Labrador—and I suspect in most provinces—the Department of Education takes a very close scrutiny of and control over curriculum and materials and what's taught, particularly in the public schools of the province. Was that the case in New Brunswick?
Did they miss something, or did they not have any control over what the Confucius Institute program was offering to the students in New Brunswick?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Did this gradually get into the curriculum, or was it something that started off with the curriculum by doing all of the things that you have been complaining about in terms of how they dealt with students and how they disciplined them, for example, for bringing up Tiananmen Square?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Did you have any trouble convincing any of your cabinet colleagues to support your decision to rid the province of the Confucius Institute?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
It still took several years to do.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Do you have any plans, Mr. Cardy, to ensure there is some Chinese language programming available in the province of New Brunswick at either the high school or the university level to provide the kinds of alternatives that have been urged upon us—by several witnesses, by the way—particularly to protect the Chinese people in Canada?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.
My first question is for you, Dr. Downie.
Health Canada's first annual report on medical assistance in dying in Canada stated:
Data linkages which would allow for more in-depth examinations of the social circumstances of persons requesting MAID (such as geography), are also being considered to support improved practice and policy decisions for social services and for health care systems.
In your written submission, you stated:
The high-quality data re: involvement of, and access to, palliative care and social and economic vulnerability do not support the concerns raised about these during legislative debates. The data reflect a similar phenomenon to that observed in other permissive jurisdictions—those who access MAiD are disproportionately privileged as opposed to socially or economically vulnerable.
Can you please expand on what you were referring to in this section of your written brief? There has been misinformation perpetuated through debates, and you encourage taking an evidence-based approach. What has your research revealed about palliative care or access to MAID for socially or economically vulnerable populations? Will the new data provisions brought in under Bill C-7 help identify gaps in proportionality?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much. That's very helpful.
With respect to the list of essential reading that was appended to your submission, you included the 2018 report by the Council of Canadian Academies' expert panel on medical assistance in dying. In that report, it was mentioned that the early planning meetings, particularly in the section dealing with mental disorder as the sole underlying—
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
With respect to that issue, can you provide more details for the committee on some of the challenging areas identified by the working group, where there were disagreements? Can you expand on that a bit for the committee's benefit?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
I just want to go back and ask Professor Downie about the question of data. She mentioned earlier the Netherlands versus Belgium, and said that Canada can in fact learn something from that.
Do you have any sense of what kinds of resources the government in the Netherlands provided to get this research and data done?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
If you could, that would be great. If you could submit that information in a written format to the committee, and any other additional information that would be valuable for consideration for recommendations, that would be very helpful.
I only have a tiny bit of time left, so I want to give you the last few moments to respond to some of the differing opinions that were offered at committee today.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Sorry, Madam Chair, but I think it's a 15-minute bell. I have a simultaneous—
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses.
I'd like to direct my question to Mr. Syed Hussan. You spoke about migrant workers and the need for all of them to have status. In this context, we're trying to get an understanding of the impact of migrant workers in rural and northern communities.
Could you share with us what some of the challenges are that they face in those communities?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Regarding the question about retention, what do you think the government should do to to get people to stay in rural and northern communities? What's your advice to the government?
Results: 1 - 100 of 11323 | Page: 1 of 114

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

For more data options, please see Open Data