SoVote

May/3/24 12:28:14 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 2438—

Questioner: Dan Mazier

With regard to expenditures on consultants by Environment and Climate Change Canada since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures incurred on consultants; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts under object codes 0431 (Scientific consultants), 0446 (Training consultants), 0473 (Information technology and telecommunications consultants), 0491 (Management consulting), 0422 (Engineering consultants – Construction), 0423 (Engineering consultants – Other), 0301 (Advertising services), 0351 (Communications professional services not elsewhere specified), and 0352 (Public relations services), including the (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) duration of the contract, (v) description of the services provided, (vi) reason or purpose of the contract?

Question No. 2439—

Questioner: Michael Barrett

With regard to the Memorial to the Victims of Communism project: (a) what specific work was done on the memorial between February 1, 2023 and March 18, 2024, broken down by month; (b) what is the current (i) targeted completion date, (ii) projected total budget; and (c) what are the details of all contracts over $1,000 entered into by the government related to the project since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided?

Question No. 2441—

Questioner: Cheryl Gallant

With regard to contracts entered into by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces relating to diversity, equity and inclusion services, since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total value of such contracts, broken down by year and by type of service provided (policy development, training, guest speaker, fee, etc.); and (b) what are the details of each such contract, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount or value, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced versus competitive bid)?

Question No. 2444—

Questioner: Taylor Bachrach

With regard to the Environment and Climate Change Canada's Holland Rock weather station near Prince Rupert: (a) how many unscheduled outages have occurred in the years 2015-2024; (b) what were the dates and durations of these outages; (c) what were the dates of visits to the weather station by the department or its contractors, (d) what maintenance and repair activities were performed during these visits; and (e) what were the costs of these visits and activities?

Question No. 2445—

Questioner: Tom Kmiec

With regard to Immigration and Refugee Board hearings on refugee claims, in 2023: (a) for written hearings, how many claims were (i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) abandoned, (iv) withdrawn and other, in total and broken down by the country of origin of applicants; and (b) for oral hearings, how many claims were (i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) abandoned, (iv) withdrawn or other, in total and broken down by the country of origin of applicants?

Question No. 2447—

Questioner: Bob Zimmer

With regard to the items listed in the Supplementary Estimates (C), 2023-24, under Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs: what are the details of the $9 million listed under "Contributions to Promote Social and Political Development in the North and for northerners", including which organizations received funding, how much each organization received, what criteria were used to determine which organizations would receive funding, how the funds were used, and the details of each project funded with the money?

Question No. 2448—

Questioner: Bob Zimmer

With regard to the items listed in the Main Estimates, 2024-25, under Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs: (a) of the $94,603,783 and the $4,151,000 respectively listed under "Contributions for promoting the safe use, development, conservation and protection of the North's natural resources, and promoting scientific development" and "Grants for promoting the safe use, development, conservation and protection of the North's natural resources, and promoting scientific development", what are the details of projects funded with this allocation, including, for each, the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) purpose of the funding, (iv) project description, (v) location; and (b) what criteria were used to determine which projects would receive funding, and how much funding each project in (a) would receive?

Question No. 2449—

Questioner: Bob Zimmer

With regard to the Northern Responsible Energy Approach for Community Heat and Electricity program: (a) what is the government estimate of the total costs required to achieve the stated goal of reducing diesel consumption by 7 million litres; (b) how much has this program spent to date, and what amount and percentage of this were spent on administration expenses; (c) how many employees or Full Time Equivalent's have been hired for the program to date, in total, and broken down by year; and (d) what are the details of all projects funded to date, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) location, (iii) amount of the funding, (iv) project description?

Question No. 2452—

Questioner: Niki Ashton

With regard to nurses employed by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) to provide health care to rural, remote and Northern communities, broken down by province or territory: (a) what is the current number of nurses employed by ISC who are (i) full-time, (ii) part-time; (b) what is the total number of new nurses hired since September 1, 2022; (c) what is the current number of vacant nursing positions; and (d) which nursing stations had their capacity reduced due to staffing shortages in other communities?

Question No. 2454—

Questioner: Niki Ashton

With regard to funding programs managed by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), and broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what are the details of each funding program, broken down by (i) name of program, service, fund, or initiative, (ii) amount of funding allocated for funding program, (iii) amount of lapsed funding, (iv) number of applicants to program; (b) which of the funding programs in (a) have been identified by ISC as part of budget 2023’s commitment to refocus government spending; and (c) what is the total amount of funding reduction that each program or grant in (b) will experience?

973 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/3/24 12:28:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, finally, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time, please. The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

27 words

Deputy
Stand

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/3/24 12:28:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, where we left off this morning, Conservatives were saying that they wanted the bill to pass. In fact, they even chastened the Liberals for not passing the bill. Just prior to question period, I asked for unanimous consent to move beyond this dilatory motion, delay motion, obstruction motion, that the Conservatives have put. What they are asking Canadians to do is to pay $70,000, which is the cost of one hour of parliamentary time, for a parliamentary debate around whether the short title of this bill should be deleted. Now, $70,000 is a lot of money where I come from. For most Canadian families, $70,000 is what they earn in a year. Conservatives have burned that money just in the last hour. What I did was that I asked for unanimous consent to move to third reading, because at this point, in report stage, all we are doing is debating the Conservatives' stupid amendment, a wacko amendment, that simply says that we are going to delete the short title of the bill. There is no substance to it. It does not improve the bill in any form. It does not make any difference in terms of the public commission that so many people have been crying out for and that is so badly needed. All it does is delay and cost Canadians $70,000 for each and every hour of this absolutely useless obstructionism. It is wacko obstructionism from an official opposition that is not a serious party. The Conservatives had the opportunity to move on that—

263 words

Debating

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:30:49 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Joël Godin

May/3/24 12:30:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our leader was expelled earlier this week for using the word “wacko”. My colleague has already said it twice, and has only been speaking for maybe two minutes. Is this considered unparliamentary language, yes or no? I would like to have a decision.

47 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:31:20 p.m.
Watch

I would ask for a bit of decorum in the House. I thank the hon. member for his point of order. Obviously, there is a difference between using that unflattering term to characterize a policy or a decision and using it to describe a person. That is how the Chair has interpreted the Standing Orders. I therefore invite the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to continue his speech. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

78 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:31:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I like your interpretation a lot because it corresponds to what the member and the Conservative members could read in the rules of the House. We are not allowed to attack other members. That is what the Leader of the Opposition and member for Carleton did. He attacked the Prime Minister, he insulted him and he refused to withdraw his comments. The member for Carleton, who has been here for 20 years, should at least understand how things work in the House. He did what everyone knows and that is exactly the opposite of how we are supposed to behave under our rules. We can criticize ideas and actions, but we cannot criticize people. Every Conservative member should know that. In the last hour, the Conservatives have burned $70,000 of Canadian taxpayers' money. Members will recall how woefully terrible the Harper regime was at managing money. It gave $116 billion in the big bank bailout on liquidity supports. Each and every year, $30 billion was given in the infamous Harper tax haven treaties. It was a sweetheart deal for Canadian billionaires and the most profitable corporations in the country, and the Conservatives just splurged that money because money does not mean anything to them. They are terrible financial managers. Conservative financial management is an oxymoron. They are the worst financial managers anyone has ever seen, and the 10 dismal years of the Harper government will remain, in infamy, the worst years of financial management in our country's history: consecutive deficits throughout that period, massive handouts to the banks, massive handouts to the oil and gas CEOs and massive handouts to overseas tax havens. At this same time—

282 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:34:03 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/3/24 12:34:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked. The member has called me and my party bad fiscal managers. I assure him that I was a money manager before I came to the House, yet I do not see any money managers over there. He is suggesting that I and other members of my party do not know how to do this, but I would strongly suggest that we have, personally, much better fiscal plans and much better economic plans than I have ever heard come out of the member's mouth. As such, I would like him to retract that remark, please.

100 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:34:38 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre for his intervention. However, that is a matter for debate. I invite the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to continue his speech.

32 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:34:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have won consecutive business excellence awards, so I have no lessons to learn from any Conservatives in the House. The reality is that the member can consult the fiscal period returns produced by the Department of Finance. It is not a hotbed of social democracy, but the federal Department of Finance, over the last few decades, produced the fiscal period returns. They say that Conservatives and Liberals are terrible financial managers and that the best governments are NDP governments. Year after year, the fiscal period returns, which every MP, Conservative, Liberal or of any other persuasion, can consult, will show that NDP governments have the best record of managing money and of paying down debt. We do that because we are able to run programs like health care and education, and we do not fritter away money like the Conservatives are doing today. For $70,000, there is this debate around this frivolous distraction of deleting the short title of this bill rather than getting on to third reading so that we can actually get in place the—

182 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:36:10 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. Unfortunately, his time is up. We will move on to questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

32 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/3/24 12:36:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was rather enjoying a good portion of the member's comments. I want to pick up on one aspect, when he talked about the short title because, for those who might be following the debate, there is a valid argument to be made that the Conservatives are doing nothing more than playing an obstructive role. Even though they say they want the legislation passed, they go out of their way to prevent the legislation from passing. When the member makes reference to the short title, this is what the Conservatives are proposing to delete: This act may be cited as the “Public Complaints and Review Commission Act”. They want that aspect of the legislation deleted. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the obstruction that the Conservative Party is playing on such important legislation.

145 words

Short

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:37:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. It is not that they want to spend hours and hours debating that one sentence and whether we remove it, when it has absolutely no impact on the legislation or on the public complaints commission, but that they want to spend. They want to waste. I see the finance critic for the Conservatives in the House right now, and they want to waste $70,000 for each and every hour—

78 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:37:53 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn on a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

May/3/24 12:37:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are allowed to mention who is or is not inside the chamber.

19 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:38:05 p.m.
Watch

The hon. NDP House leader knows the rules of the House. He cannot say who is present in the House and who is not. He has a few seconds left to finish his answer.

34 words

Rules

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:38:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, they have wasted $70,000, so far, on this meaningless debate and delay tactic. I think Canadians would say to get on with the public complaints and review commission. Why did they not accept the UC that I moved prior to question period, which would actually allow us to move to third reading debate on this bill?

59 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

May/3/24 12:38:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about, really, restricting or censoring the ability of members in the House to speak and voice their concerns about legislation. Does the hon. member think that all members of the House should have an equal right to speak to any bill at any stage of the debate, and if he does not, as the House leader for the New Democratic Party, how does he censor or restrict his members when they are speaking in this chamber?

83 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:39:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague for his French question a little while ago. I was quite impressed with that. His French is coming along well. The reality is that there is no censorship, when one is paying $70,000, to debate deleting one line that has absolutely no impact on the bill. The short title has no impact on the bill itself. This is nothing but a delay tactic. I point out Conservative hypocrisy, when Conservatives rise in the House and say that it is really important that this bill passes and wonder why this bill has not passed, and it is their fault that it has not passed. They held this bill up for months in the public safety committee by bringing forward meaningless motions, constantly, so that we could not actually get to the nuts and bolts of the bill. I spoke earlier about the many amendments and improvements that the NDP brought. As the worker bees of the House of Commons, as the adults in the room, we wanted to improve the legislation so that it was better. However, the Conservatives just want to block it and block it. If one blocks legislation, at least step up and have the guts to say that they have been blocking it for months, that they are going to block it even more and that they do not mind if Canadians are spending $70,000 an hour listening to us debating this meaningless amendment that deletes the short title. If one is going to block legislation and stop good things from happening, at least have the guts to own up to it.

275 words

Censorship

SoVote

House Hansard - 308