SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.)

May/21/24 3:13:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows very well that there are internal investigations taking place with respect to this matter. A number of people were properly called before parliamentary committees, and they came to testify. Of course, he also knows that the RCMP is looking into this matter. He made reference to that in an overly dramatic moment as well. The member should have the decency to let the police do its work. We have said from the beginning that anybody who misused taxpayers money will be held to account. I have confidence that the RCMP will do its work.

100 words

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/21/24 6:41:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Simcoe North on May 8, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2221 and the testimony of the Department of Finance on the subject matter of Bill C-69, the budget implementation bill. Question No. 2221 asks for information about overpayments for the Canada child benefit. The member acknowledged in his intervention that the government did respond to significant parts of his written question. However, the government was unable to respond to a sub-element of the member's question, and I will quote that part. The question states: ...collected from taxpayers who received overpayments following or due to death of a child; and (b) what is the amount of money represented by the overpayments in (a)(i) and (a)(ii)? There is a simple and straightforward response to this. The Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, has an identifying code for why a child has become ineligible for the Canada child benefit. However, CRA does not have the reason codes for the overpayment. The reason for this is that the CRA does not have the information about a child's death, but the CRA cannot determine the reason for an overpayment or a recovery and how that relates to the child's death. The death of a child could form one piece of potentially multiple pieces that would result in an overpayment. The question posed by the member on May 7 at the finance committee was about cancelled eligibility for the Canada child benefit and was not requesting information about overpayments. These are two different questions. In conclusion, the specific information sought in Question No. 2221 relates to overpayments. The answer provided to the member reflects the data available in the CRA systems relating to overpayments in the manner requested by the member. Where there were limitations to the provision of data, a rationale for the limitation was provided in response to the member. As you can see, Madam Speaker, there was no intent to mislead the member or the House in the government's response to Question No. 2221. Moreover, information the member referred to in his intervention from testimony at the finance committee on May 7 differs from the information provided in response to Question No. 2221 since they are different questions. As I have previously stated in the House, the government can only answer the question posed in the Order Paper Question. It cannot assume that a member is making a different question. I can confirm that the government's response to Question No. 2221 was accurate, and we stand by it. A question was posed through the Order Paper process. The government responded to the precise question accurately and within timelines established in the Standing Orders. This matter does not in any way affect the member's rights or privileges in discharging his parliamentary duties.

494 words

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

May/21/24 11:59:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I say hello to Liberal illusionism and hello to Canadian junk progressivism. This budgetary smokescreen hides Ottawa's two main obsessions: using our money to support the oil and gas companies despite fine pseudo-environmental speeches that sound good at social gatherings, and invading the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. We know that the oil companies will be getting $30.3 billion in subsidies in the form of tax credits, meaning that taxpayers will be paying oil companies to pollute less when they do not need that money. There is also the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs called the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, which signals more interference, more fights and more delays, even though the housing crisis calls for swift action. I will use my last two seconds to say that we are voting against this bill.

146 words