Committee
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 2009
View Judy Foote Profile
Lib. (NL)
I want to pick up where Mr. Martin left off, actually—not the wrap-up bit, but trying to get a handle on job creation.
I've been reading the evidence from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology of witnesses who appeared before that committee on November 30. You had witnesses from Western Economic Diversification, from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and from the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. They were very specific about jobs created.
I will just give you one example. This was under the recreational funding. It says here:
The City of Mount Pearl, in Newfoundland and Labrador, received $600,000 in RInC funding for a $1.8 million upgrade to its main soccer facility, a project that created 33 short-term jobs.
When we talk about the stimulus funding and about the rationale for it being to create 220,000 jobs and to deal with the ailing infrastructure throughout the country, I have to ask, Madam Baltacioglu, when you say you haven't asked for job numbers, and part of the rationale for having the stimulus funding is to create 220,000 jobs, and it would appear that at least in some cases there are numbers available to you, why haven't you asked for those numbers?
How can you explain that, yes, you're going to create 220,000 jobs, but you're not asking for the numbers, so you really don't know how many jobs have been created?
View Judy Foote Profile
Lib. (NL)
No, I understand that. That's perfectly understandable.
View Judy Foote Profile
Lib. (NL)
I appreciate everything you're saying. This is my question, then. Was the 220,000 jobs figure put out there, as one of the criteria under this stimulus funding, really a number just thrown out there, when in reality there was really no way of counting the number of jobs created?
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2009-12-08 11:57
Thank you very much.
It's good to see you again, Mr. Mills.
I want to welcome our other two witnesses.
I come from the great Labrador riding. I just want to make that very clear.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Todd Russell: How do you deal with claimant groups that do not have a settled land claim? Are they treated as just another Yukoner or Canadian for the purposes of involvement in the environmental assessment process or is there some special way you deal with that?
Because there are asserted claims that haven't been dealt with, as I understand it, or finalized. Would that not impact the nature of the negotiations, their land selections, and things of this nature?
For a group that hasn't had a settled land claim, Mr. Robertson, they would not be included in the land use planning process other than as regular Yukoners as well. Is that the way it is? I'm just trying for clarification. I'm using some words, but I'd like to have some clarification on that.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2009-12-08 11:59
You made the comment, Mr. Robertson, that the land use plan is the front end of the process and YESAA is the back end. If you're saying the front end is not efficient enough or we don't have the resources--
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2009-12-08 12:00
--or the people resources to do that work and it is integral to YESAA's process, what does it say about the integrity of YESAA itself in carrying out its particular mandate?
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2009-12-08 12:02
On the land use planning side, it's basically a land claims implementation issue. Is that right?
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2009-12-08 12:02
Are all levels of government living up to the spirit and intent of the land claim agreements?
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2009-12-08 12:02
Okay.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2009-12-08 12:16
Go ahead.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2009-12-08 12:18
You're right spot on, sir.
We'll move now to Ms. Crowder for five minutes
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2009-12-08 12:59
Thirty seconds?
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2009-12-08 12:59
Well, with respect to what everybody has said, I don't see.... We should interpret the standing orders in the broadest context to allow the committee to have a full airing of all aboriginal issues and those that affect aboriginal people.
It would not be the first time that more than one committee has looked at a similar topic. This report was not commended to any particular committee for its consideration, so I think it's well within our purview as a committee to study it, to accept it, and to have witnesses here in front of us.
It is not a matter of interfering with another committee. It's a matter of us doing our work and reporting to the House, which hopefully will find some congruency and consistency between our work and that of another committee. It's not overstepping the bounds of another committee for us to study it, to look at it.
Neither is it against the standing orders for us to commend a report. We're not talking about a statute or a law of whatever; we're talking about a report to the House for consideration. If there were to be a debate on this motion, for instance.... This doesn't call for a report back from the House. That discussion in itself could inform other committees, so I see no argument for why this is outside the standing orders. It is admissible and it should be put forward.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Generals, for coming in response to our request to get a briefing on the situation.
First of all, General Natynczyk, I want to thank you for your forthrightness here today and also for making it very clear, providing a level of clarity we haven't had before, on the end of mission and the fact that this would happen in accordance with the interpretation, as you put forth, of the parliamentary motion.
You used the metaphor of running through the ribbon at the end of July 2011, indicating clearly that everything will be up and running until that time. However, I'm trying to envisage the period between July and the end of 2011. Can we anticipate a significant troop drawdown in August 2011? Would that happen very quickly? Obviously, with the logistics, your cohorts here have a lot of work to do to make that happen, but in terms of the troops themselves, since they will no longer be involved in an active combat role, would they move out very quickly? We see this happening all the time, troops coming home, and in the case of other forces, different brigades going in and others coming out. Is that what we will see happen in August 2011?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Can someone tell us--perhaps you, General Natynczyk--who is responsible for coordinating this relief in place? Is that something the Government of Canada would do through its allies? Or is this something at the operational level that you would be responsible for in terms of negotiating with General McChrystal or with whoever happens to be then in charge? Is that something you would do?
Results: 1 - 15 of 2009 | Page: 1 of 134

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

For more data options, please see Open Data