David McGuinty

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pick up on something the member raised during his remarks. He cited the case of Yukon.

Yukon has its own environmental assessment process, agreed to by the federal government. It took several years to develop. The good news about the Yukon process is that when it was being developed there was extensive consultation with industry, with the labour movement, with environmental NGOs who were not described as radical or accused of laundering money, and with different groups working with the government. When the final process was brought into play in Yukon, everyone agreed to it and signed off on it. It is a very interesting model for us to be learning from.

Why does the government not follow the good advice and the good system that was put in place under the previous Liberal governments that actually arrived at a system that improved the system, with everybody agreeing with the actual changes?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, which I think would be helpful in our overall discussion about the process that has gone on here.

I think it is fair to say that the consensus in the House is, even among some backbenchers in the government, that the bill should have been divided into pieces and that there should have been proper consideration given to the regulatory changes.

For example, we know, in the wake of this week's oil spill in Alberta, that the Government of Canada's regulatory standards right now for pipelines do not distinguish between diluted bitumen and conventional oil. We know that diluted bitumen is more problematic to ship, more toxic, more corrosive, more abrasive and is more likely to lead to more pipeline ruptures.

Could she address how that kind of issue specifically would have benefited from a proper multi-stakeholder process, either through Canada's National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which was just killed, or perhaps even at a special legislative committee?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, this morning in the natural resources committee, we heard testimony about the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. It was very revealing to see how it was arrived at. It was supported by industry, environmental groups, labour groups, and all kinds of players in Yukon society. It took three to four years to craft it. It is in complete contradistinction to what the government is doing here.

I think the government could take a page and learn from the Yukon experience to come up with a better regulatory process, improve it, which is something we all want to see for Canadians, but do it in a way that is inclusive, meaningful, consultative, and end up with a process that everyone believes in.

Perhaps my colleague could respond to that.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech and pick up on the theme that was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

If indeed the government has been working on these changes for years, I am wondering if the member could help us understand why it is that just recently the government dispatched 10 senior cabinet ministers around the country to try to convince Canadians that the environmental assessment process would be capped to two years, only to then have to admit that in fact, when a project proponent delays, the two-year timeline no longer applies.

Maybe the member could help us understand, for example, how that applied in the case of Imperial Oil in the Northwest Territories.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of many Ottawa residents who are deeply disturbed by this issue. They urge the government to reinstate funding to the community access program.

Quite unbelievably and sadly, the Conservative government is disconnecting Canadians from their communities, from business opportunities and from government services. It is shutting people out of the online conversations that are shaping our society and that we have all come to count on.

I am pleased to table this petition on behalf of my constituents.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2012]

With regard to government offices, how many offices have been newly opened or relocated since January 1, 2006, specifying: (a) the department or agency; (b) the division, unit, or other like descriptor; (c) in the case of relocated offices, the former location, including full address; (d) the location of the newly-opened or relocated office, including full address; and (e) in the case of leased space, the name of the firm or person leasing the space to the government?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2012]

With respect to Treasury Board numbers for public sector employees as of March 31, 2012: (a) what is the number of public sector employees broken down by the following regions for the fiscal years ending March 31, 2009, March 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, and March 31, 2012, namely: (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Prince Edward Island, (iii) Nova Scotia, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, exclusive of the National Capital Region, (vi) National capital Region, Quebec portion, (vii) Natioanl Capital Region, Ontario portion, (viii) Ontario, exclusive of the National Capital Region, (ix) manitoba, (x) Saskatchewan, (xi) Alberta, (xii) British Columbia, (xiii) Yukon, (xiv) Northwest Territories, (xv) Nunavut, (xiv) outside Canada; and (b) for the answers in (a), what are the numbers in each region broken down by (i) indeterminate employees, (ii) specified term employees, (iii) casual employees, (iv) student employees?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2012]

With regard to Old Age Security: (a) has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) or any other department undertaken new estimates since 2009 of the number of people over the age of 65 who are not receiving their OAS pension despite being eligible for it, and, if so, what are those estimates; (b) has HRSDC or any other department undertaken new estimates of the number of people aged 60-64 who are not receiving their OAS Spouse's Allowance despite being eligible for it, and, if so, what are those estimates; (c) Has HRSDC or any other department undertaken new estimates of the number of people aged 60-64 who are not receiving their OAS Survivor's Allowance despite being eligible for it, and, if so, what are those estimates; (d) how many of the people included in the estimates referred to in (a), (b) or (c) are currently in receipt of benefits under the Canada Pension Plan; (e) what outreach activities or initiatives has HRSDC, Service Canada or any other department undertaken to notify eligible seniors who are not currently in receipt of OAS pension, Spouse's Allowance or Survivor's Allowance; (f) has HRSDC, Service Canada or any other department undertaken any notifications by mail to eligible seniors who are not currently in receipt of OAS pension, Spouse's Allowance or Survivor's Allowance; and (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, (i) in what years were letters mailed, (ii) how many were sent in each of those years, (iii) what was the response rate in each of those years?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 4th, 2012]

With respect to greenhouse gas emissions: (a) what particular programs or initiatives was the Minister of Natural Resources referring to in the statement that “since 2006, our government has invested more than $10 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build a more sustainable environment” (interview with The Hill Times published Monday, August 16, 2010); (b) what is the full breakdown of that spending; (c) for each program in (a), (i) what was the total amount of emissions reductions which resulted, (ii) how was the amount of reduction quantified and by whom; and (d) for all programs included in the $10 billion expenditure, what was the average cost per unit of greenhouse gas emissions reduced?

[Restoring Rail Service Act, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague across the floor.

We hear an awful lot about the economic rationale and justification for this intervention. Following that logic, can the member please stand and tell Canadians who are watching the debate this evening in what instance the government would not intervene?

There are work stoppages that occur on a regular basis. These, of course, have an impact on customers, on inventory and on deliveries. The government has already intervened repeatedly in a single year four or five times: Air Canada, Canada Post, CP Rail.

Could the member please inform the House in what instance the government would not interfere in collective bargaining?