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 1260
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
I want to say it's surprising to hear the Liberals supporting this when their leader actually said that manufacturers should look for other work in this country. It's quite surprising that Mr. Brison has now changed his party's position on this matter.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
I think it's only fair that the government have an opportunity to rebut Mr. Brison's campaign electioneering. I don't know if that was actually approved by his official agent or not, but in any case, I can say that our plan requires no increase in taxes whereas the Liberal plan requires an increase in taxes. That's the biggest difference. The Liberals feel that they can raise taxes in order to spend taxpayers' money whereas we believe in keeping more money in the pockets of Canadian taxpayers.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
The government does not support a fixed date for tabling the budget as that would really restrict the government's flexibility in responding to global and domestic matters.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
Thanks, Chair.
The government does not support the proposed clause as it would introduce a significant degree of subjectivity and unnecessary complexity into the proposed act. The proposed legislation has been drafted to be transparent, easily verifiable by Canadians, and in line with the government's fiscal policy approach in the wake of the great recession. The proposed clause would introduce a measure, a budgetary balance after investments, and a positive discounted net present value of cost and economic social deterrence, the calculation of which would be highly subjective, opaque, and not easily verifiable.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
Thanks, Chair.
I want to point out that during the great recession, the Liberals actually encouraged us—pleaded with us—to spend even more money, to invest even more money in the economy, so if they had been in power, we would have been much further in debt and would have cost Canadian taxpayers billions and billions more. Fortunately, we did not listen to the Liberals and Canadian taxpayers are better off as a result.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
Protecting sensitive information from disclosure is critical in national security cases. Removing these provisions would put at risk the investigative information from law enforcement and national security agencies that may contain source, investigative, and potentially ally information, and eliminate some of the procedural fairness elements introduced by the government in these proceedings. Therefore, this amendment fundamentally contradicts the rationale of the purpose of the act.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
The use of special advocates is currently limited to proceedings under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, such as judicial proceedings related to security certificates. The rights and freedoms affected by immigration proceedings require greater protections than those affected by passport decisions. Judges always retain the discretion to appoint an amicus curiae to assist in proceedings, including those involving sensitive information, in order to protect the interests of the person. Therefore, this amendment should not be supported.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Protecting sensitive information from disclosure is critical in national security cases, for the same reasons I've already stated.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
This proposed NDP-1 amendment goes against the arm's-length nature of the government's role in overseeing a crown corporation. Should the proposed amendments to the Export Development Act come into force, EDC will include a strategy for operationalizing the development finance initiative, including with respect to performance measures and corporate social responsibility policies in its corporate plan.
As part of his ongoing consultation activities, the Minister of International Development will consider stakeholder views pertaining to the development finance initiative.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
It should be noted that the DFI's capital base to make investments will be additional and complementary to Canada's official development assistance. It will not be sourced from Canada's international assistance budget. Support under the proposed legislation will not qualify as official development assistance under current international rules set out by the OECD Development Assistance Committee. However, these rules are being reviewed and could be subject to change in the future.
Consequently, the proposed amendment would produce an outcome that could put Canada out of step with international norms in the future.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
There is no need for a statutory requirement to have such frequent reviews, given existing accountability mechanisms in place through the Export Development Act. The act already includes a section instructing the minister responsible for EDC to review, in consultation with the minister of finance, the provisions and operation of the act, including proposed paragraph 10(1)(c) should it come into force, every 10 years.
The next legislative review of the Export Development Act is scheduled for 2018, and would thus be expected to cover the operationalization of EDC's development finance initiative, should it come into force.
In addition to this formal statutory obligation, the government will monitor EDC's development financing activities and provide clear direction on Canada's international development priorities through the existing crown corporation's corporate planning process. Under this process, EDC is obligated to publish a summary of its corporate plan and an annual report on its activities.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
So there are no more amendments PV-25 and P-26? They are gone. Is that right? They're toast.
View Andrew Saxton Profile
CPC (BC)
We're on division 20, clause 254. Is that correct?
I just want to say that the government continues to negotiate with bargaining agents and is prepared to consider reasonable improvements to its tabled proposals. In the event that after all reasonable attempts have been made it is impossible to reach a negotiated outcome, the government will need to have alternative options available.
Revising lines 16 and 17 of clause 254 would take away the government's ability to consider alternative options to modernize sick leave provisions in the event an agreement cannot be reached within a reasonable timeframe. Taking away this flexibility would prevent the government from addressing the health and well-being of employees who do not have sufficient banked sick days to get them through to long-term disability.
This is a consequential amendment directly tied to the previous proposal and as such, it cannot be accepted. Moreover, accepting this change would lead to a range of different sick leave regimes across the core public administration. This would undermine the government's intent to be fair to both employees and taxpayers. Multiple regimes are inefficient and expensive for taxpayers while being inequitable for employees.
That was in relation to the suggestion in paragraph (b).
That's all I have for clause 254.
Results: 1 - 15 of 1260 | Page: 1 of 84

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

For more data options, please see Open Data