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 570
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2019-06-19 16:33 [p.29406]
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to table a petition that was signed at the Guelph Farmers' Market. A lot of advocacy goes on there every Saturday between 6 a.m. and noon.
This petition is delivering community power to the post office in the post-carbon economy. There are a lot of ideas around greening the post office and providing more services for seniors.
The petition is signed by 48 Canadians.
View Irene Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
View Irene Mathyssen Profile
2019-06-14 12:29 [p.29133]
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first is from petitioners who support postal banking. They point out once again that nearly two million Canadians desperately need an alternative to payday lenders whose crippling lending rates affect the poor, marginalized and indigenous and rural communities. There are 3,800 Canada Post outlets in these communities, where there are fewer and fewer banks and credit unions and the infrastructure to make a rapid transition to postal banking. The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to enact my motion, Motion No. 166, to create a committee to study and propose a plan for postal banking under the Canada Post Corporation.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 2371--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the March 2019 leak of information related to the Supreme Court nomination process: does anyone in the Office of the Prime Minister know who leaked the information, and, if so, who leaked the information?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2372--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to federal spending from January 1, 2019, to April 1, 2019: (a) what expenditures were made in each of the following municipalities (i) City of Saguenay, (ii) City of Saint-Honoré, (iii) Municipality of St-Ambroise, (iv) Municipality of Saint-Fulgence, (v) Municipality of Sainte-Rose-du-Nord, (vi) Municipality of Saint-Charles-de-Bourget, (vii) Municipality of Bégin, (viii) Municipality of Saint-Nazaire, (ix) Municipality of Labrecque, (x) Municipality of Lamarche, (xi) Municipality of Larouche, (xii) Municipality of Saint-David-de-Falardeau; and (b) what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans given to any group, broken down by (i) name of recipient, (ii) date of funding, (iii) department or agency that provided the funding, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the funding was granted, (vi) purpose of the expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2373--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in the riding of Jonquière on housing over the period of 1995 to 2018, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in the riding of Jonquière over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in the riding of Jonquière over the period of 1995 to 2018, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in the riding of Jonquière over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in the riding of Jonquière over the period of 1995 to 2018, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in the riding of Jonquière over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in the riding of Jonquière as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2374--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to claimed stock option deductions, broken down by the 2015 and 2016 taxation years: (a) what is the number of individuals who claimed the stock option deduction whose total annual income is (i) less than $200,000, (ii) between $200,000 and $1 million, (iii) more than $1 million; (b) what is the average amount claimed by an individual whose total annual income is (i) less than $200,000, (ii) $200,000 to $1 million, (iii) more than $1 million; (c) what is the total amount claimed by individuals whose total annual income is (i) less than $200,000, (ii) between $200,000 and $1 million, (iii) more than $1 million; and (d) what is the percentage of the total amount claimed by individuals whose total annual income is more than $1 million?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2375--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the statement in Budget 2019 that, “since Budget 2016, the Government has taken many actions to improve the fairness of the tax system”: (a) what is the name of each of these actions; (b) what is the total amount collected by the Canada Revenue Agency, broken down by each of the actions in (a); (c) of the actions in (a), how many actions sought specifically to address aggressive international tax avoidance; and (d) of the actions in (a), how many sought specifically to address international tax evasion?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2376--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the Offshore Tax Informant Program, for each fiscal year since 2015-16 to the current date: (a) how many calls have been received; (b) how many files have been opened based on information received from informants; (c) what is the total amount of the awards paid to informants; (d) what is the total amount recovered by the Canada Revenue Agency; (e) how many current investigations are the result of information received through the program; and (f) how much money is involved in the current investigations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2377--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to advertising paid for by the government for each fiscal year from April 1, 2016, to the present date: (a) how much did the government spend on advertising; (b) what was the subject of each advertisement and how much was spent on each subject; (c) which department purchased the advertising and what are the detailed expenditures of each department in this regard; (d) for each subject and department mentioned in (b) and (c), how much was spent on each type of advertising, including but not limited to (i) television, specifying the stations, (ii) radio, specifying the stations, (iii) print, i.e. newspapers and magazines, specifying the names of the publications, (iv) the Internet, specifying the names of the websites, (v) billboards, specifying their locations, (vi) bus shelters, specifying their location, (vii) advertising in all other publicly accessible places; (e) for each type of advertising in (d), was it in Canada or abroad; (f) for the answers in (b), (c) and (d), how long did the advertisements run for; (g) for each advertising purchase, who signed the contracts; (h) for each advertisement, who was involved in the production; (i) for each advertisement, was a third party involved in its publication or did a third party coordinate other advertisements based on the government advertisements; and (j) for each advertisement, did the purchase and publication coincide with a specific event, such as a sporting event?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2378--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to wrapping or other advertising expenditures for the exteriors of buildings since November 20, 2017, broken down by department, agency, Crown Corporation, or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on wrapping or advertising, broken down by individual building; (b) what are the details of all wrapping, tarp, or similar type of advertising on government buildings, broken down by individual building, including (i) vendor, (ii) scope or description of services or goods provided, (iii) date, (iv) amount, (v) file number, (vi) address of building?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2380--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft by Transport Canada: (a) what specific safety tests were conducted by Transport Canada prior to the certification of the aircraft; (b) what specific tests results did Transport Canada use from the United States' Federal Aviation Administration in lieu of Transport Canada conducting its own tests; and (c) did Transport Canada rely on any testing information provided directly by the manufacturer instead of conducting its own tests, and, if so, which tests did Transport Canada rely on the manufacturer’s information for?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2381--
Mr. Ed Fast:
With regard to government funding in the riding of Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all grants and contributions to any organization, body, or group, including (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant or contribution was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) what is the total of all funding provided in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2382--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the sewage lagoon which burst at the North Caribou Lake First Nation this past winter: (a) why did Indigenous Services Canada initially refuse to provide emergency repairs to the lagoon; (b) what amount has the government provided for repairs to the lagoon; and (c) when was the funding commitment conveyed to the North Caribou Lake First Nation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2384--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the government’s investigation into the leak of information about the reported $10.5 million payout to Omar Khadr: (a) what specific measures did the government do to investigate the leak; (b) how many individuals were assigned to duties in relation to the investigation; (c) what were the findings of the investigation; (d) how much did the government spend on the investigation; (e) did the government refer the leak to the RCMP; (f) which departments and agencies were involved in the investigation; and (g) what are the details of any contracts related to the investigation, including (i) amount, (ii) date, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2385--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to expenditures on government advertising with Internet search engines such as Google and Bing, since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) amount, (ii) date and duration of contract, (iii) vendor, (iv) name of search engine, (v) purpose of advertisement or summary of campaign; and (b) what is the total of all expenditures in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2386--
Mr. Luc Thériault:
With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, for each fiscal year from 2010-11 to date: what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2387--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to the government's agriculture trade commissioners based in Canadian consulates or embassies in foreign countries: how many were employed, in each country, from fiscal year 2015-16 to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2388--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the 12 benchmark tax measures specific to the fossil fuel sector identified by the Department of Finance: (a) has the department finished assessing the measures and, if not, why did the department not respect the December 2018 deadline established in its action plan; (b) how many measures are still being assessed; (c) what is the assessment deadline for each measure in (b) or the deadline for all assessments; (d) what is the estimated annual cost of each of the 12 measures; and (e) how many of the measures that have been assessed constitute inefficient tax subsidies in the opinion of the department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2389--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the partial inclusion of capital gains tax expenditure, for the 2018 taxation year: how many individuals can claim this exemption, broken down by the 2018 federal income brackets of (i) $46,605 or less, (ii) between $46,605 and $93,208, (iii) between $93,208 and $144,489, (iv) between $144,489 and $205,842, (v) over $205,842?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2394--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the staff of the Office of the Prime Minister, as of February 1, 2019: (a) how many earn an annual salary of $150,000 or more; (b) how many earn an annual salary of $200,000 or more; (c) how many earn an annual salary of $250,000 or more; (d) how many earn an annual salary of $300,000 or more; (e) of those who earn an annual salary of $200,000 or more, how many received a performance bonus; and (f) of those who received a performance bonus, how much was each of those bonuses?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2395--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the government’s GoHere Washroom Locator App participation announced on December 11, 2018: (a) how much has been spent on joining this program; (b) how much does it cost to maintain participation in the program; and (c) how many full-time equivalents monitor the government’s participation in the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2396--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Phoenix Pay System: (a) to date, how much is the government owed in overpayments; (b) of the amount in (a), how much has been collected and how much remains to be collected; (c) how many new pay issues, or transaction errors, have been logged since March 31, 2018; and (d) of the transactions listed in (c), how many are serviced in Miramichi and how many are serviced by other government departments based elsewhere?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2397--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the recent government mail-out for the Climate Action Incentive payment in the form of a mail card: (a) how many cards were printed and what was the associated cost to print the cards; (b) broken down by province, how many cards were mailed out and what was the associated cost to mail the cards; (c) what are the details of all expenditures related to the mail-outs, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services rendered, including quantity; (d) were carbon offsets purchased to offset the production of these cards and, if so, what are the details of any such expenditures; (e) was 100% recycled paper used and, if not, why not; and (f) what is the carbon footprint associated with the production of the cards, including estimated greenhouse gas emissions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2398--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to the Capacity-Building Fund of the Women’s Program under the Department of Women and Gender Equality (formerly Status of Women Canada), what are: (a) the names of each organization that submitted an application for the funding; (b) the names of each organization that received or will receive funding under this grant period; (c) the amounts of funding awarded to each organization receiving it, broken down by name; (d) the names of each organization whose application did not result in funding; and (e) the detailed descriptions of the funding allocation under this program to organizations operating federally, provincially, and regionally?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2399--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to funding of Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSP), since January 1, 2008, and broken down by year: (a) how many times has the government required repayment of the government contributions to a Registered Disability Savings Plan since the RDSP was established; (b) how many RDSP holders have passed away before being able to draw on their RDSP; (c) how much funding has been recovered by the government from RDSP contributions in percentage and total dollar figures; (d) how many times has the government waived repayment; (e) what conditions must be met in order for repayment to be waived; (f) how many times has an RDSP holder passed away while having children under the age of 18; and (g) what is the average value of a recovered portion of an RDSP?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2400--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the $1.5 million grant provided by the government to La Passerelle I.D.E. by Public Safety Canada under the Crime Prevention Action Fund: (a) how much of the grant has been paid out to date; (b) what was the original purpose of the grant; (c) does the government believe that this money has been spent appropriately by the receiving organization and, if not, does it plan to recover any of the funding; (d) what specific action has the government taken with the organization to ensure that the money went towards its intended purpose; and (e) is the government concerned with the report in the Toronto Star that innocent women who are not sex workers have had their names put forward by the organization and, if so, what action has the government taken in response?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2401--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada providing over $900,000 in funding to Wi’am through a $4.8 million payment to Kairos Canada as part of the government’s Women of Courage: Women, Peace, and Security program: (a) when did the government become aware that it was funding a group which supports the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sactions (BDS) campaign; (b) what is the government’s position on the statement from the director of Wi’am that “The world needs to be liberated from this guilty feeling that Israel has tried to instill in them and the world should be helping Israel shed its victim identity through BDS”; and (c) will the government immediately stop any funding to Wi’am and, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2402--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to concerns that federal government job advertisements on Facebook were microtargeted at certain demographics while excluding other demographics, since November 4, 2015: (a) which government jobs were advertised on Facebook; (b) what are the details of all job advertisements, including (i) date advertisement started, (ii) job title; and (c) for each advertisement, which ones were microtargeted at certain demographics and what demographics were (i) included, (ii) excluded?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2406--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to the government’s handling of the Canola crisis: (a) how many times has the Minister of Agriculture met with or called the Minister of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China to discuss the matter; (b) for each instance in (a), what (i) was the date, (ii) was the type (telephone, in person, etc.), (iii) were the results; (c) how many times has the Prime Minister met with or called the Chinese President to discuss the matter; and (d) for each instance in (c), what (i) was the date, (ii) was the type (telephone, in person, etc.), (iii) was the results?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2407--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the appointment of Ministerial Special Representatives since November 2015, broken down by year and individual appointment: (a) what is the name of the Ministerial Special Representative; (b) which Minister appointed them; (c) were they paid for their services; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, how much were they paid in total, including expenses for travel, etc.; and (e) what was the stated purpose of their appointment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2409--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to government advertising since November 4, 2015: (a) how much has each department, agency and Crown corporation spent on advertising (i) on Facebook, (ii) on Xbox, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, (iii) on YouTube, (iv) in sponsored tweets on Twitter, (v) on Instagram; (b) for each advertisement, what was its (i) nature, (ii) purpose, (iii) target audience or demographic profile, (iv) cost; (c) what was the media authorization number of each advertisement; and (d) what are the reference numbers of the documents, reports and memoranda concerning each advertisement or its after-the-fact evaluation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2410--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With regard to the Rental Construction Financing Initiative: (a) what are the details of projects approved to receive loans, including the number and sizes of proposed rental units, project locations, interest rate, and repayment period; (b) on what basis has the government calculated affordability of proposed rental units of varying sizes for approved projects; and (c) how will the government ensure rental units in approved projects remain affordable over the long term?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2411--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government in 2016: (a) how much money, has been allocated to Transport Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (b) how much money has been spent under the OPP, by Transport Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (c) how much money has been allocated to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (d) how much money has been spent under the OPP by the Department and Fisheries and Oceans, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (e) how much money has been allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (f) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Environment and Climate Change Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (g) how much money has been spent under the OPP on efforts to mitigate the potential impacts of oil spills, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (h) how much money from the OPP has been allocated to the Whales Initiative, since 2016, broken down by year; (i) how much money has been spent under the OPP on the Whales Initiative since 2016; and (j) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that the funding allocated under the OPP is spent on its stated goals in a timely manner?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2412--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the communities which comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, between the 2005-2006 and current year fiscal year: (a) what are the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to the municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; (b) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the regional districts of (i) Comox Valley Regional District, (ii) Nanaimo Regional District, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, (iv) Powell River Regional District, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; (c) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Horny Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasquetti Island, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure; (d) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to (i) the Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nation, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K’omoks First Nation, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) projects; (e) what are the infastructure funding of Pacific Rim National Park, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure (iii) project; (f) what are the funding of Highways, including but not limited to, (i) Highway 4, (ii) Highway 19, (iii) Highway 19a, (iv) Bamfield Road, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) projects; and (g) what are any other infrastructure investments provided through the funding of national parks, highways, Build Canada, Infrastructure Canada, Gas Tax, Small Crafts and Harbours, BC Ferries, etc., broken down by (i) fiscal year (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2413--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to each of Canada’s Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centres (MCTS Centres): what was (a) the projected spending compared to the actual spending for the 2012-13 through 2018-19 fiscal years, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location; (b) the total number of staff for each MCTS Centre from the 2012-13 through 2018-19 fiscal years, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location; (c) the projected staffing at MCTS Centres for the 2019-20 fiscal year, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location; (d) the total expenditures related to travel and overtime of staff members in the western regions from the 2012-13 to 2018-19 fiscal years, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location; (e) the projected MCTS officer graduations from Canadian Coast Guard College, in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and at all other accredited institutions in the 2018-19 fiscal year; (f) the total number of officer shifts which “ran short” at the MCTS locations in Victoria and Prince Rupert, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location; and (g) the total expenditures on building and equipment maintenance at each MCTS Centre, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2414--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the government's use and receipt of credit cards since 2015-16 to 2018-19: (a) how much has the government paid in credit card merchant fees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) company, (iii) amounts withheld, forgone or otherwise held by either credit card companies or service providers; (b) how many credit cards does the government currently have in use for staff, and which companies provide them; (c) for cards provided by the government to staff, what is the annual fee paid by the government per card; (d) does the goverment provide any cards to staff that include redeemable rewards and, if so, what are these rewards and who collects them; and (e) how much has the government paid in late or overdue balances, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2415--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to the new, coordinated plan to deliver $5 billion to $6 billion in new investments in rural broadband Internet service over the next 10 years: (a) when will the details of the new plan be announced; (b) will the government release the details of the new plan to the public; (c) what minimum speeds will be required to be eligible for funding, broken down by (i) Connect to Innovate, (ii) the new Universal Broadband Fund anticipated by the government; (d) what minimum monthly usage allowances will be required to be eligible for funding, broken down by (i) Connect to Innovate, (ii) the new Universal Broadband Fund anticipated by the government; (e) which costs will be eligible or ineligible, broken down by (i) Connect to Innovate, (ii) the new Universal Broadband Fund anticipated by the government; (f) of the proposed $5 billion to $6 billion in investments, (i) how is the funding broken down by department or agency, (ii) what percentage of the funding will be allocated to private-sector partners, (iii) what percentage of the funding will be allocated to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, (iv) what percentage of the funding will be allocated to not-for-profit partner organizations; (g) according to the government’s estimates, what percentage of households and businesses do not have access to broadband Internet service in the current year; (h) what is the annual target to deliver broadband Internet service to households and businesses between 2021 and 2030, inclusive, broken down by year; (i) what is the annual projection to deliver broadband Internet service to households and businesses between 2021 and 2030, inclusive, broken down by year; and (j) do budgetary considerations explain why the target of providing 100% of households and small businesses with broadband Internet access cannot be achieved before 2030 and, if so, what are these budgetary or other considerations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2416--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to financial assistance applications made to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions, for each fiscal year from 2015-16 to date, broken down by regional office: how many requests were approved and how many were rejected when submitted for the approval of (i) the regional director, (ii) the director general, (iii) the vice-president, (iv) the president, (v) the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2417--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to Bill C-337, Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act: did anyone in the Office of the Prime Minister, the Office of Leader of the Government in the House of Commons or the Privy Council Office advise the Leader of the Government in the Senate to delay or prevent passage of the Bill in the Senate and, if so, (i) who provided the advice, (ii) what advice was given, (iii) when was the advice provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2418--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the Impact Canada Initiative: (a) what is the overall budget; (b) how were members of the Impact Canada Advisory Committee chosen; (c) how much compensation or remuneration is being paid to members of the Advisory Committee; (d) are members of the Advisory Panel required to recuse themselves on any funding advice which may benefit any entities which they own or are employed by and, if not, why not; and (e) what are all the funding decisions made to date by Impact Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2419--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With respect to the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, and with respect to the agriculture stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) how many applications has the government received for temporary labourers for the 2018 crop harvesting season for each program; (b) how many applications have been approved thus far for the 2018 crop harvesting season for each program; (c) how many applications have been denied thus far for the 2018 crop harvesting season for each program, including rationale; (d) how many applications did the government receive for temporary labourers for the 2017 crop harvesting season for each program; (e) how many applications were approved for the 2017 crop harvesting season for each program; and (f) how many applications were denied for the 2017 crop harvesting season for each program, including rationale?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2420--
Mr. Robert Aubin:
With regard to VIA Rail’s high-frequency rail proposal for the Toronto–Quebec City corridor: (a) did the Canada Infrastructure Bank have meetings with (i) Transport Canada, (ii) Department of Finance Canada, (iii) Infrastructure Canada, and, if so, for each of the meetings in (a), what were the (i) date of the meeting, (ii) location of the meeting, (iii) meeting participants, (iv) topics of discussion, (v) names of potential investors; and (b) was a public-private partnership or public-public partnership option assessed or is one being assessed, and, if so, what delivery model options for the public-private partnership were discussed or assessed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2421--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to the G7 Summit held in Charlevoix in 2018: (a) what are the total expenditures to date; (b) what is the breakdown of expenditures by financial code, including a description of what each code represents; and (c) what are the details of all contracts related to the Summit, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date and duration of contract, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) quantity of goods or services provided, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2422--
Ms. Sheri Benson:
With regard to all federal programs, services, grants, transfers, contributions, and all other initiatives related to the construction, upgrading, renovation, and maintenance of all public and private housing projects between fiscal year 2014-15 and the current: (a) what are all the projects funded for each electoral district; (b) what is the specific fund or program each project was funded through; (c) what is the dollar amount contributed by the federal government to each project; (d) what are all the other funding partners for each project, including (i) provincial, (ii) municipal or Indigenous governments, (iii) private owners, (iv) renters, (v) investors, (vi) contractors or operators, (vii) not-for-profit organizations, (viii) individual or household, (ix) other; (e) what is the dollar amount contributed by each funding partner for each project; (f) what is the number of new housing units or dwellings created by each project; (g) what is the number of existing housing units or dwellings renovated by each project; and (h) what is the completion date or expected completion date for each project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2423--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With respect to the announcement in the 2018 Fall Economic Statement making available up to $755 million on a cash basis over 10 years to establish a Social Finance Fund, and specifically with respect to the reference on Page 167 of Budget 2019, Investing in the Middle Class, regarding Renewable Funds (British Columbia) provides early-stage growth capital to for-profit social enterprises with the potential to create social or environmental change in industries such as clean technology and sustainable agriculture: (a) what is the exact funding amount earmarked for Renewable Funds (British Columbia); (b) what are the definitions of “sustainable agriculture” and “clean technology” with respect to this Fund; (c) how will that funding be allocated between clean technology and sustainable agriculture; (d) who are the “professional investment managers” who will manage the allocated funding; (e) what is the application process for enterprises seeking funding under this Fund; and (f) which government departments or agencies oversee this Fund?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2424--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the First Nations On-Reserve Housing Program, the British Columbia Housing Subsidy Program, the On-Reserve Non-Profit Housing Program, the First Nation Market Housing Fund, and the British Columbia New Approach for Housing Support, since November 2015, broken down by (i)program, (ii) year, (iii) region, (iv) First Nation: (a) how much has been allocated to the program; and (b) how much has been spent through the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2425--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to Government of Canada delegations to the United Nations in New York or Geneva, broken down by department and fiscal quarter since November 4, 2015: (a) what was the number of individuals in and accompanying each delegation, including (i) ministers and parliamentary secretaries, (ii) exempt staff, (iii) public servants, and (iv) guests; (b) what was the total cost for each category of attendee outlined in (a); and (c) in the case of guests, what was the rationale for their invitation to join or accompany the delegation for each case?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-2371 Information leak related t ...8555-421-2372 Federal spending in Quebec8555-421-2373 Housing investments and ho ...8555-421-2374 Stock option deductions8555-421-2375 Tax fairness actions8555-421-2376 Offshore Tax Informant Program8555-421-2377 Government advertising8555-421-2378 Wrapping and advertising e ...8555-421-2380 Certification of the Boein ...8555-421-2381 Federal funding in the con ...8555-421-2382 Repairs to the sewage lago ... ...Show all topics
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-04-08 18:52 [p.26835]
Mr. Speaker, it is worth opening by saying, for those who may be following along at home, that adjournment proceedings are meant as an opportunity to follow up on brief exchanges that happened in question period about particular issues.
This is the third time in as many months that I am up on my feet to follow up on questions I asked in the fall that had to do with the behaviour of Canada Post management during the rotating strike of postal workers in the fall, particularly the decision made by Canada Post management to stop paying sick and vulnerable workers who were on the short-term disability plan during that strike, as a negotiating tactic.
I have heard a lot of non-answers and unsatisfactory answers about why the government condoned that decision. I have heard, for instance, that really, it was not that mean a thing to do, because even though they were cutting off their short-term disability payments, people could still access EI and could even apply to get the benefits they were entitled to back. Some of them did, but others did not. I do not think that answer passes muster at all. There is nothing compassionate about cutting off a benefit people are entitled to and then allowing them to apply to get it back.
I have heard that the government would not intervene in the management practices of Canada Post, despite the fact that the Canada Post Act clearly gives the minister the authority to issue a directive, and she could have told Canada Post to stop doing that. It is not really a good answer from a government that has shown that it is willing to inappropriately try to influence an auditor general to drop a criminal proceeding when it had no business doing that at all. The question, then, is why the government would not intervene to help workers when a public corporation made a bad decision and it had the lawful authority to do so.
We have heard all sorts of half answers, non-answers and distractions about why the government did not use the tools at its disposal to intervene and say, “There is a rotating strike going on, and it is completely unacceptable for a Crown corporation to be picking on its most sick and vulnerable workers as a negotiating tactic.”
The government could have said that it was something it did not support and then disallowed Canada Post doing it. It would not have affected whatever happened, ultimately, at the bargaining table. This was not a bargaining issue. This was an issue of management practices during a strike. The fact of the matter is that the government decided to be a party to that decision to deliberately target sick and vulnerable workers, because it did nothing to stop it when it could. I still have not heard an answer as to why.
Therefore, for the people who for five weeks did not receive their already limited pay, I want someone from the government to stand up and explain to them why the government thought that was acceptable.
View Marc Serré Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marc Serré Profile
2019-04-08 18:55 [p.26836]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for bringing up this important issue.
I am happy to rise today to speak about our government's introduction of back-to-work legislation to ensure the resumption and continuation of services at Canada Post.
Our government has always recognized that unions play an important role in protecting workers' rights and in growing the middle class.
I would remind the House that under the previous government, many of the fundamental labour rights that unions fought to secure were rolled back. It was more difficult for workers to organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith and work in a safe environment.
When we came to power, we restored fair and balanced labour laws that recognize the important role that unions play in Canada. We abolished Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which weakened Canada's union movement.
We recognize that unions are important in helping the middle class grow and prosper. We also believe in a fair and balanced approach to labour relations.
This is why the government did everything it could to support Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and encourage them to sign new collective agreements.
However, despite our efforts, the parties were unable to reach an agreement. We brought in back-to-work legislation, Bill C-89-, on November 22. The rotating strikes ended and postal services resumed.
On December 10, the Minister of Labour appointed Elizabeth MacPherson, a former chair of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, to help the parties reach new collective agreements.
The most recent collective agreements have been extended until new agreements can be reached. The work stoppage at Canada Post has had significant negative impacts on Canadians, charities, businesses of all sizes, international commerce and Canada Post, its workers and their families.
Canadians and businesses rely on Canada Post and its workers, especially during the busy retail season. We had to take action. Let me be clear that back-to-work legislation was a last resort, but a necessary one after having exhausted all other options. It was necessary to avoid future harm to the economy.
We took these steps, and we continue to ensure that there are fair negotiations between Canada Post and its union to reach a negotiated settlement.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-04-08 18:59 [p.26836]
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to follow up on that. I do hope the member will consider speaking to the question I pose in his next response.
The fact is that when SNC-Lavalin came to the government and said that it had a problem and needed a change, it received a legislative change and then the full force of the PMO putting inappropriate pressure on the former attorney general to drop a criminal proceeding. When workers on short-term disability at Canada Post during a rotating strike came and asked for help to receive their short-term disability benefits, the government did absolutely nothing, despite having a lawful authority, under the Canada Post Act, to issue a directive and tell it to stop suspending those payments.
I want to know why that big company received all the special treatment in the world, a bending of the rules, and workers on short-term disability could not even get the time of day?
View Marc Serré Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marc Serré Profile
2019-04-08 19:00 [p.26837]
Mr. Speaker, it is really important that both parties sit down to negotiate. Both parties have to look at elements in the collective agreement. As the member mentioned, this is something that needs to be negotiated. It needs to be outlined by both parties in order to support the workers.
The government did not want to resort to back-to-work legislation, but discussions with the union and workers were necessary.
Of course, the best outcome is one that is reached by both parties negotiating at the table. However, if it cannot happen, then the government has to intervene. Back-to-work legislation was a last resort after having exhausted every other option.
It is important to remain confident that the mediator and arbitrator will work on the issues mentioned, as well as other issues, so both parties can find a solution that results in a win-win situation. We will continue to monitor the situation closely as the days, weeks and months progress.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-04-01 19:31 [p.26551]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to recall some of the events of last fall concerning the strike by Canada's postal workers.
I am sure there are a number of members on the government benches who would be happy to forget about those events and what the strike meant for workers' rights in Canada, but we here have not forgotten. In particular, I am following up on a question that had to do with the suspension of short-term disability benefits for Canada Post workers while the rotating strike was happening.
We have had a number of exchanges in the House before, including in late shows like this one, and the government has been very unapologetic for the fact that Canada Post workers who were on short-term disability had their benefits cut off when the postal workers went out—and not for a full strike, but for a rotating strike. Those workers who were receiving short-term disability benefits did not get a rotating termination to their short-term disability benefits: They were off that benefit for the entire time.
What seems to be the subject of some dispute is the role of the government in causing that suspension of benefits to occur for those people who were already vulnerable, who were already living on a reduced income and who did not have a way to make up that income.
I would draw the attention of the House to subsection 22(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which says that “In the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties, the Corporation shall comply with such directives as the Minister may give to it.”
This establishes a very clear legal authority for the minister responsible for Canada Post to tell Canada Post management that they have the option of suspending those short-term disability benefits but that the minister thinks it is wrong, that they should not do it, and is directing them not to do it and to continue making those payments as if the collective agreement were in force.
Therefore, notwithstanding whatever was happening or not happening at the bargaining table and with the strike, what I am zeroing in on today is that I and many people across the country believe that it was a wrong and mean-spirited decision by Canada Post management to suspend those short-term disability benefit payments and that the government was at the very least complicit in that decision in not exercising its authority under the Canada Post Corporation Act to tell management to cut it out.
I would like somebody from the government side to stand tonight and explain to those workers why it was that the government was willing to stand idly by while they were not getting paid their short-term disability insurance when their co-workers were out on a rotating strike. For virtually every day on that strike, the mail got delivered in most parts of Canada. There were some service interruptions, but these people lost their benefit full time, all the time, while the rotating shrike was occurring.
Why was the government content to stand by and let that happen?
View Rodger Cuzner Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Rodger Cuzner Profile
2019-04-01 19:34 [p.26552]
Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague and I can certainly agree on the fact that in the best-case scenario both sides are able to sit down at the bargaining table and come out with an agreement that is of benefit to all. Unfortunately, there are instances that arise where such is not the case and an agreement is elusive. That is when governments have to take action.
As we have previously said, back-to-work legislation is a last resort solution. It is something that this government certainly did not take lightly. We did everything we could to support and encourage Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to reach that negotiated collective agreement. Throughout the process, which was going on for well over a year, the parties were assisted by federal conciliation officers, mediators and a special mediator. Alas, despite these efforts, the parties were unable to reach a new agreement.
As a last resort, the government tabled Bill C-89 in November 22 of last year. This set out the process by which the parties were required to work with an independent mediator-arbitrator and the employees would return to work. On November 26, Bill C-89 received royal assent, the rotating strikes ended and all postal services resumed on November 27.
Since Canada Post and CUPW were unable to agree on a mediator-arbitrator as per the process outlined in the legislation, our government appointed a former chairperson of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board to serve as the mediator-arbitrator to assist the parties in reaching a new collective agreement.
It seems to me that it is worth noting that the member across has conveniently forgotten about the many changes our government has brought forward for workers because this is about workers. We have passed legislation to modernize federal labour standards in this country, which have not been updated since the 1960s. These changes stem from extensive consultations with stakeholders who have told us the same thing, time and time again: The way Canadians work has changed, but federal labour standards have not.
The modern set of labour standards we have introduced will better protect Canadian workers, especially those who are most vulnerable, such as workers who are in part-time, temporary or low-wage jobs and it will help set the stage for good-quality jobs. This modern set of standards will also help ensure employees in precarious work are paid, treated fairly and have access to labour standards by introducing equal treatment protections.
These are just some of the measures that we have taken to show respect in our approach to labour as a government and in developing the labour laws that are needed for today's workforce, but also respecting collective bargaining, making sure that Canadian workers are shown respect and that the Government of Canada is there not to put its thumb on the scale.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-04-01 19:38 [p.26552]
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will know that we disagree pretty seriously about the way the government chose to handle that particular strike, but my question today is very specific. It has to do with the workers on short-term disability who had their benefits cut off for five weeks without any reprieve, break or anything else.
The fact of the matter is that the government did have the power to intervene to tell Canada Post the truth, which was that this was an underhanded bargaining technique. The government is ultimately responsible for that. That is on the government for not having done anything about it.
We still have not heard a justification for it. We have heard excuses. We have heard diversions, such as, “Well, they could have applied for EI” or “Well, you know, there was a compassionate program where we cut them off their benefits and then let them reapply later and we said yes to some and no to others.” None of those answers cut it.
This is another opportunity for somebody from the government to get up and explain why it was that it stood by for five weeks while vulnerable workers did not receive their short-term disability payments. Why was that?
View Rodger Cuzner Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Rodger Cuzner Profile
2019-04-01 19:39 [p.26552]
Mr. Speaker, again, my colleague across started his initial comments saying that the people on the government side would like to forget last fall and the legislation. In fact, there is one thing that I will not forget. It is the sanctimony from the NDP when they stood and fought against it.
It was a last-step solution. However, we know that NDP governments have brought in back-to-work legislation 15 different times. The member for London—Fanshawe, the member for Hamilton Centre and the member for Vancouver East all passed back-to-work legislation.
The one that really gets it for me is back in 1995 during the railway strike. I will read from Hansard, which says, “I want to make it clear that though we object to back to work legislation, we think it should be passed in all stages today. The strike has gone on long enough.” That was in response to legislation that came to the House in 1995.
Do members know who said that? It was this member's father. There is a time to bring in back-to-work legislation and Bill Blaikie was a member who I had a huge amount of respect for. He knew it at the time and I would encourage his son to maybe have that conversation.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-02-27 18:15 [p.25884]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to follow up on some matters I raised in question period last fall. At that time there was a rotating strike by CUPW members at Canada Post. In the context of that rotating strike, and this was prior to back-to-work legislation being introduced and passed, Canada Post made a mean-spirited decision.
Workers were out on the rotating strike, which meant they were missing a few days in month they were on strike. They were being paid for the days they worked, but members who were not working, those who were on short-term disability, were deprived of their benefits. It was a mean-spirited decision taken by Canada Post. It was a tactic, and an ugly tactic at that, to try to put pressure on the union.
I am wondering how many postal workers showed up to work on the Liberals' campaigns. I know a lot of postal workers worked on the campaigns of Liberal MPs. They believed what the Liberals were telling them, that they had their backs. They were very disappointed when this all came to a head. They were not impressed with the back-to-work legislation. However, it was the Liberal government's prerogative to tell Canada Post to cease and desist on that decision, which it could have chosen not to take.
Canada Post could have chosen to continue on with the short-term disability benefit payments as well, not just on a case-by-case basis and not on a compassionate basis. When someone is sick or injured, he or she is already dealing with a substantial amount of stress and financial hardship. These workers had been on a reduced salary and now they did not collect a salary while applying for those compassionate grounds.
Canada Post did not have to do it that way. It could have said that as a matter of policy, it would continue to pay those short-term disability benefits. The fact that it chose not to do meant that those people who were already sick and injured had to suffer having no salary, while their colleagues who were able to work, and because it was not a full strike, were still largely getting paid.
I never did get a satisfactory answer from the government on why it did not choose the high road and decide to continue to make those short-term disability payments as a matter of course instead of on an exceptional basis for only some of the people who needed those benefits. I wonder what government members say to those postal workers in their ridings, those who came out and campaigned for them in 2015, when they express disappointment and anger at the fact that their sick and injured co-workers had to go without that money.
The other thing the Liberals could have done was to make those workers whole after they legislated them back to work and they did not do that either. We still want to know why.
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2019-02-27 18:15 [p.25884]
Madam Speaker, during the last election campaign, there was a lot of talk about Canada Post and its future. We promised to destroy Mr. Harper's plan and adopt a new plan. We consulted at length with people across the country, including postal workers. We concluded these consultations with a good plan, a plan for the future that respects Canada Post employees.
I would like to clarify some of the facts about the benefits employees are entitled to in the event of a strike. It is an unfortunate fact that during a strike, some of the benefits that Canada Post employees receive could be affected because the collective agreement has expired. However, this would not be true for all benefits. For example, during a strike, employees could continue to have prescription drugs covered.
Moreover, during the strike action that took place in November 2018, Canada Post put in place a mechanism to make it possible for employees to request an exemption from any denial of benefits on compassionate grounds. I would like to also add that employees continued to keep their EI benefits, such as maternity and parental benefits, during the strike.
Although the employees are now back to work, negotiations on a final agreement are under way. I believe that we will reach a good collective agreement.
Our government urged the two parties to continue with bargaining for more than a year. We believe that a respectful dialogue between the two parties is the best way forward and the best way to reach a fair agreement.
We reached a turning point last year, with the stalled negotiations and weeks of rotating strikes across the country. Jobs, the well-being of the most vulnerable Canadians and our economy were all in jeopardy.
It is our job to do what is right for Canadians. That is precisely what we did when we introduced and passed Bill C-89, which got Canada Post back to work on November 27, 2018, while setting out a process for continuing negotiations with an independent mediator-arbitrator.
I am confident that Canada Post values its relationship with the union. Certainly, that is something that we have encouraged the new management and new board to pursue. I am encouraged that they have been able to find common ground on many issues. Moreover, I know Canada Post values its relationship with Canadians, who more than ever depend on it to deliver.
Both sides of this dispute are working hard to resolve these issues. The arbitration process outlined under Bill C-89 officially began on January 16 of this year.
As the Minister of Labour said when tabling Bill C-89, this was a last resort, something that our government had done everything in its power to avoid. While we did not take the decision lightly, we acted as we always do, with the best interests of all Canadians in mind.
Canadians should expect nothing less from us as parliamentarians. Our objective has always been to restore necessary services to all Canadians in the immediate term and to encourage those involved to find common ground for the long term.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-02-27 18:18 [p.25885]
Madam Speaker, I think the member knows that we disagree about back-to-work legislation, as well as the government's characterization of the strike. However, I want to focus particularly on the issue of short-term disability benefits.
The question is not whether the collective agreement expired or not. I do not think that is the interesting question. The interesting question is whether there was anything prohibiting Canada Post from acting in good faith and continuing those short-term disability benefits. The expiration of the collective agreement does not require that it discontinue those benefits. It made it an option.
Therefore, will the member stand up and admit that Canada Post had the option, and that the minister had the option to direct Canada Post to continue those benefits, notwithstanding the fact that the collective agreement was deemed to have expired?
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2019-02-27 18:19 [p.25885]
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, labour negotiations are very difficult. They certainly appear to have been in this case, and sometimes messy. The operational decisions of Canada Post are generally not something that the minister or the government interferes in. Our role, both legislative and on a day-to-day basis, is to name the CEO and the board of Canada Post and to approve its general business plan, all in accordance with its governing legislation. That is a job we take very seriously.
Of course, we have encouraged it to pursue a more meaningful dialogue and to meaningfully improve the labour-management situation in the corporation. That is something we are reassured it is continuing to do. We all look forward to the conclusion of this matter.
Results: 1 - 15 of 570 | Page: 1 of 38

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

For more data options, please see Open Data