Frank Valeriote

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2011]

With regard to the purchase of 65 F-35(A) fighter jets for future use in the Canadian Forces: (a) when and on how many occasions did the Department of National Defence (DND) submit a justification for “the legal authority to use an exception to competitive bidding”, as is required in section 3.15[a] of the Treasury Board Guideline; and (b) for each submission, referenced in the government’s response to part (a) of this question, that utilized the exception to competitive bidding found under section 3.15[a][iv] of the Treasury Board Guidelines, what justification is provided that would allow the government and DND to consider the F-35(A) as the only aircraft capable of meeting all of the department’s high-level mandatory requirements for this procurement project despite the department’s knowledge that the F-35(A) cannot meet the mandatory requirement pertaining to air-to-air refuelling?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2011]

With regard to government funding within the constituency of Guelph: (a) what was the total amount offunding originally announced, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to andincluding fiscal year 2010-2011, specifying for each announcement (i) the department or agencyresponsible for the funding, (ii) the program or initiative from which the funding came, (iii) the project name, (iv) the total value of the project; (b) for each announcement identified in (a) what was, (i) the total amount delivered, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to and including fiscal year 2010-2011, (ii) the department or agency responsible for the delivered funding, (iii) the program or initiative from whichthe delivered funding came, (iv) the project name, (v) the total value of the project; and (c) broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to and including fiscalyear 2010-2011, in each case where the final, total amount delivered, as specified in (b), was different from the funding amount announced, as specified in (a), what was the reason for this discrepancy?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2011]

With regard to the operating budget freeze at NAV CANADA: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2011]

With regard to the operating budget freeze at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid-off; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired; and (e) what is the projected attrition rate over the next five years?

[The Economy, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the results of the plebiscite make it clear that farmers want the Canadian Wheat Board to stay. From the Regina Leader-Post in 2009, I quote:

Well, farmers have spoken. We recognize that, at this time and place, this is what farmers are asking for and we'll certainly work to make sure that the board delivers for them in the best way possible.

Who said that? It was the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

The law is clear, and farmers have spoken again. Why does he not honour the will of farmers, heed his own words and keep the Wheat Board?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have never been part of a union, but in my past life I negotiated plenty of collective agreements, usually acting on behalf of management. We always entered those negotiations with goodwill, with the intention of there being a win-win scenario at the end, realizing that good faith had to be maintained between the parties because they had to live together and work together afterwards.

I am wondering if there is value in letting the workers go back to work and enter into regular mediation-arbitration negotiations, and I am wondering whether that kind of relationship, that good relationship, is retrievable or not, as opposed to forcing this draconian legislation on CUPW right now.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I met with CUPW last week in Guelph and every single member said they just wanted to go back to work. They wanted to go through normal negotiations, mediation, arbitration if necessary, but they were not allowed to.

I wonder if the member would speculate as to why Canada Post has refused to do that. Does he think there might have been any collusion with the government in maintaining this position?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I received an email last night from a constituent in Guelph. His name is George. He is a CUPW member. He delivers the mail and he is anxious to get back to delivering the mail.

George suggested that the post office simply unlock the doors and let everybody get back to work. They would continue to work. They would continue to negotiate in good faith and would go through the normal mediation and arbitration process. He figures that within 24 hours people would have their mail again.

I'm wondering what the member would say to that suggestion, as opposed to the draconian measures that are found in the bill put forward by the government.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her thoughtful comments.

Like many others, I have not been part of a union. In fact, in my previous life I negotiated many collective agreements on behalf of management. While we always approached those negotiations with an attitude of a win-win for both sides, we realized that after negotiations, we still had to maintain good relations. We had to have faith in one another. We had to build morale on both sides, for the employer and the employee.

Last night I received a letter from a CUPW member, George, who asked me to see if there was any possible way he could get back to work right away, have the doors unlocked and resume the mail for all people, for businesses and residents who deserved to receive it.

I wonder if the member could speak about the merit of letting everybody go back to work, resuming their former positions, and going through a normal mediation and arbitration process rather than going through the terms imposed by this legislation.

[Service Canada Mandate Expansion Act, June 22nd, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-247, An Act to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill, seconded by the member for Markham—Unionville, to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident.

The bill requires the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to establish Service Canada as the single point of contact for the Government of Canada for matters relating to the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident when cancelling social insurance numbers, passports and dealing with pensions and tax records for example.

The current system is far too cumbersome for those who have lost their loved ones and a new single point of contact system would save the government money by consolidating the agencies responsible for conducting this administration.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)