Arnold Chan

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the member for Vancouver East for her contribution to this debate. We can see from her passion that she will make incredible contributions to this House.

On this side of the House, members can see that we have no substantive disagreement with the motion before the House. Rather, I have more of a comment.

I happen to sit on the procedure and House affairs committee. One of the only concerns I have with this motion is the decision to refer this matter to a special committee as opposed to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Does the hon. member have a particular reason why the New Democratic caucus has decided to proceed by way of a special committee as opposed to having it referred back to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women?

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend opposite from Durham for his comments in respect to the legislation before the House. While I take his comments to heart, I do not necessarily agree with his characterization that this side of the House is one of “tax-and-spend”, to use his nomenclature.

As the member was giving a history lesson to this side of the House and although I know that he might not have been here earlier, since he also joined the 41st Parliament like I did in a by-election, I want to ask him how he would characterize, for example, the $160 billion in debt that was incurred under his previous government and used and justified by that government to deal with the difficult economy in 2008-09.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and congratulate my friend from Ajax on his return to the House. In my particular case, when I refer to him as my friend, indeed he really is a friend of mine that I have known for two decades. I would never have imagined at the time that I would have the opportunity to serve with my friend in this particular place. I really do look forward to working with him to further the issues that he described specifically in his speech.

There are a number of topics that the member for Ajax raised on which I could ask questions, but I have a very specific one, and of course it actually affects the region that we ultimately represent. Although I am not from Durham, I represent an area just a little bit to the west of him in Scarborough.

I would like to know whether he thinks that particular projects or aspects within our platform that talk about infrastructure would make a material difference to his particular residence in Ajax? Would he describe to this House what those things might actually be that we could work on collaboratively with other members of this House?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, it is my understanding, then, that these particular organizations are the only ones that are being dealt with under the current appropriation.

Are there plans by the ministry to deal with other agencies that are also working on this particular file somewhere down the line? Would that be appropriately dealt with in future supplementary estimates, or is that a decision that has yet to be taken by cabinet?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, I first want to congratulate my friend from Mount Royal for his maiden address in the House of Commons. He has some big shoes to fill as well, given his predecessor who occupied the seat before him.

My questions deal with the issues that the member raised in his address.

To the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, specifically with respect to the appropriations that are before the House today, it is my understanding that $3.6 million of it is to deal with 23 welcoming centres that are initially going to be taking in the refugees. Is there anything within the current appropriations that deals with other settlement agencies that are also assisting inbound Syrian refugees coming to Canada?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate with respect to the Speech from the Throne, but before I do that, as this is the first time I am rising in debate, I want to first pay tribute to the residents of Scarborough—Agincourt for returning me to this place, despite the fact that I had some health challenges earlier this year. I deeply appreciate the tremendous show of support that I received, not only from my constituents, and it was an overwhelming response that I and my family received, I received a tremendous show of support from this place from colleagues from the 41st Parliament.

I want to pay tribute to members on all sides of the House for their tremendous show of support during what was, I will be honest, a difficult time.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the new members who are joining this Parliament in the 42nd Parliament. I look forward to working with all members in the course of this particular Parliament in advancing our democracy and making sure that we work hard for all Canadians across this country from coast to coast to coast.

Turning to the substantive matter before the House, which of course is the Speech from the Throne, I will note that the Speech from the Throne outlined five major themes that were reflected in what was essentially a very workman-like speech. It basically outlined the importance that we ultimately had put forth during the election campaign, of making sure that we grow our middle class and that our middle class has that particular opportunity again to feel that they are participating effectively in the Canadian economy.

Over the course of debate and during question period, we have heard concerns about our proposed changes to the electoral system. I simply want to say to hon. members, particularly from the official opposition, that our intent here is to make sure that we end the first past the post system. We want to ultimately bring a parliamentary process to establish the terms of reference by which we can consult Canadians in moving beyond the first past the post process that we currently have to use to elect our members of Parliament.

The third issue is re-establishing our perspective with respect to the environment. The Speech from the Throne essentially outlined the fundamental change between the current government and the previous government as we recognize the importance of tying the environment to the economy. Clearly, we will be moving forward and making sure that we can grow our economy and do so in a sustainable manner.

The fourth theme that was established in the throne speech is ultimately recognizing the tremendous diversity that is Canada, whether it is diversity with respect to the different regions of our country or the very changing nature of our population.

Finally, the throne speech dealt with issues relating to security and opportunity. The Speech from the Throne outlined the really important component of making sure that we move forward in such a way that we keep ourselves safe, while at the same time pursuing new opportunities to grow our particular economy—

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the new member for Ottawa West—Nepean. I want to welcome her to the House and let her know that she is filling some very big shoes, given who the previous member was for Ottawa West—Nepean. I want to pay tribute to the hon. John Baird for his tremendous service in this House. I know that the present member will make the same kind of contribution as the previous member did.

In looking at the biography of the hon. member, I see she has been an expert in the area of international development. I would like her thoughts on what would be the necessary investment or things that we need to do to rehabilitate Canada's role internationally, particularly in the area of international development.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate you on the assumption of your role in the chair. I look forward to working with you, along with all hon. members, in your new role.

Let me also congratulate the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun on your election and for your maiden speech in the House. As you noted in your speech, you will have very big shoes to fill, given the predecessors who have occupied your riding in the past.

As I was listening to your speech, I noted that you gave a very colourful description that shared with all members what a wonderful riding you represent. In many ways, it reflects my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt.

Related to his discussion on public infrastructure, in particular public transit, how does the hon. member see that unfolding in a way that would allow less reliance on cars and movement toward a greener, more prosperous way to move our residents around?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 12th, 2015]

With regard to the government's Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA): (a) how much money does the government project to collect over the next ten years for the fee associated with this program, broken down by (i) annual amount, (ii) country of origin; (b) what programs or rules are in place which would allow the fee to be waved; (c) how much does the government project this program will cost for each of the next ten years, broken down by individual expense; (d) whom did the government consult before putting this program in place; (e) which countries' travellers will be required to get ETA before flying; (f) will individuals entering Canada by means other than by airplane be required to get an ETA, and, if so, how will the government enforce this requirement; (g) what fines or other measures are in place in cases where companies do not ensure that passengers have complied with the rules for ETA; (h) does the new ETA requirement conflict with any other travel agreements Canada currently has; (i) what is the expected impact on the Canadian tourism industry; (j) what factors were taken into account when deciding on the seven dollar fee, broken down by (i) cost, (ii) the results for any business case for these studies; (k) how long does an ETA remain valid; (l) how many full-time employees will review the ETAs, broken down by (i) the number of full-time employees assigned to the ETA file, (ii) the number transferred from different divisions, (iii) the divisions from which employees were transferred, (iv) the location where the full-time employee will be working; (m) what will be the anticipated processing time of an ETA; (n) will there be an additional cost for rush processing times; (o) what contracts have been awarded in relation to this project, broken down by (i) the name of the company, (ii) the amount of the contract, (iii) the dates of the contract, (iv) the description of the work being provided, (v) whether the contract was tendered, (vi) the country where the company will complete the work; (p) will dual Canadian citizens be required to get an ETA to travel to Canada; and (q) will permanent residents of Canada be required to get an ETA when returning to Canada?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 12th, 2015]

With regards to the government’s telecom services, including cell phones, land lines, voice-over-internet, and other, for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to the present: (a) how much has the government paid for telecom services, broken down by (i) the names of the telecom providers, (ii) the amount paid to each provider, (iii) the number of land lines provided by each provider, (iv) the number of cell phone lines provided by each provider, (v) the number of voice-over-internet lines provided by each provider; (b) how much has the government paid in late fees and to which providers; (c) has the government conducted any internal surveys of telecom services, and, if so, what were the results, broken down by (i) the tracking number and name of the survey, (ii) the questions asked, (iii) the answers provided, (iv) the tracking number and title of any briefing notes created from the survey; (d) how many calls has the telecom help desk received; (e) for each answer provided in (d), (i) what were the most common issues, (ii) where were the calls made, broken down by department; (f) how much has the government collected in fees for 1-900 or 1-800 numbers, broken down by (i) the number, (ii) the amount per number; (g) how much has the government paid for downloading applications on phones, broken down by (i) application, (ii) individual cost; (h) how much has the government paid for texting services, broken down by (i) the name of the service, (ii) the cost; (i) has the government completed any studies on the use of cell or voice-over-internet technology for government employees; and (j) if the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, (i) what are the names and tracking numbers of these studies, (ii) what were the conclusions of these studies, (iii) what are the briefing notes and tracking numbers associated with these studies?