House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crime.

Topics

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives' lack of transparency on spending reached a new low this week. When the media asked how much the Department of National Defence's HQ renovation would cost, the government responded by saying, “Go file an access to information request”.

Now we find out that this paranoid government had the number of $623 million all along but would not release it to the public, so I ask the minister this question: what could possibly be the justification for keeping this number secret?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, yes, in fact, the Department of National Defence and the public works department are collaborating to consolidate the workforce of national defence here in the nation's capital. We are moving forward with a plan to have those consolidated workforces go from 48 different buildings to 7 in the national capital. An independent third-party analysis has looked at this plan and has come back with the numbers. There will be a cost saving, a long-term ongoing savings, estimated at around $30 million a year. This is good news for taxpayers, and I know the member opposite will want to support it.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, we will deal with the issue of whether or not we are getting value for dollars afterwards, but right now I would like an answer to the question of why the government felt it was necessary to keep a number that it already had secret from the media, secret from the public and secret from this Parliament.

What is the justification for the secrecy?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his question, albeit in a rant. I will answer the question again. This is a good move for the Department of National Defence. It will see us consolidate our headquarters at the Nortel campus, which was purchased, I again repeat, to save money. This was done looking at the spending levels that were recorded.

Where were they recorded? It was at a Senate hearing some nine months ago.

Where were they recorded? I spoke about this in transcript at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, of which the member opposite was a member.

Justice
Oral Questions

November 29th, 2011 / 2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, all of the available evidence, including evidence from the Department of Justice, shows that mandatory minimum sentences are excessive, ineffective, disproportionate, costly and do nothing but increase prison populations.

Will the Minister of Justice present to the House the evidence on which he based his decision to support mandatory minimum sentences?

Justice
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe
New Brunswick

Conservative

Robert Goguen Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice

Mr. Speaker, this matter has been the subject of extensive debate, not only in the House, but also in committee. All documents indicating the costs involved have been tabled. As we know, victims are the ones who bear the cost of crime. We are talking about a total cost of $99.6 billion, 83% of which is borne by the victims. We support the victims, while they support the criminals.

Justice
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, the justice for victims of terrorism act would give victims of terror a civil remedy against their terrorist perpetrators, but it would limit the remedy by immunizing the state perpetrator of terrorism, allowing the remedy to be used only against proxies or agents of the state sponsor.

Why is the government denying Canadians an effective remedy against states that support terrorist proxies or that commit the terrorist acts themselves?

Justice
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Provencher
Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has been working on this file for a long time, and we appreciate the support that he has provided in giving us advice.

We have proceeded in the way that we have in the bill because of the advice we received from various organizations. We believe that this is the most effective way to ensure that terrorists are held accountable and that victims have a remedy in situations where they would otherwise not have a remedy.

Aviation Safety
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, 17 people died on March 12, 2009, when Cougar flight 491 went down after loss of oil pressure. Less than a year before, the same thing happened to an Australian helicopter, but Transport Canada failed to take action.

After the Newfoundland tragedy, the Transportation Safety Board recommended that all Cougars must be able to run dry for 30 minutes, but the Sikorsky still fails the test.

Why are we giving the Cougars a free pass at the risk of the lives of offshore workers?

Aviation Safety
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean
Québec

Conservative

Denis Lebel Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, this was a very tragic accident. My thoughts are with the victims and their families.

My department continues to work toward addressing the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board. We will also continue working with our international partners to develop a coordinated approach that would help prevent these accidents from occurring in the future.

Aviation Safety
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, families of the victims who died in a Cougar helicopter crash off Newfoundland want to know why the faulty Cougar gearbox was certified.

The minister will not answer. The sole survivor of the crash wants to make sure all helicopters in the air now can run dry for 30 minutes. The Transportation Safety Board agrees with that recommendation.

Why does the minister continue to allow these faulty, unsafe helicopters in the air? Why is the minister ignoring the safety of Canadians?

Aviation Safety
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean
Québec

Conservative

Denis Lebel Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the safety of the public is very important to us.

We do not use these events to play politics. This is a very tragic accident. Our condolences go out to the victims and their families.

I can confirm that Transport Canada has received notification that the litigation against it relating to this accident has been discontinued.

Firearms Registry
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Mr. Speaker, Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all. That is exactly what we are going to do.

However, today the members from Western Arctic and Skeena—Bulkley Valley caved to pressure from their big city elite union bosses and showed up at the public safety committee to attempt to gut our legislation.

Could the Minister of Public Safety please comment on the action of these two members of Parliament?

Firearms Registry
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

I am afraid that question has nothing to do with the administration of government. We will go on to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

Government Communications
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, the government said it did not order public servants to replace the term “Government of Canada” with the Prime Minister's own name.

However, records show that is just not true. As one Industry Canada official noted in an email, he was forced to use the PM's name “as per our directive from PCO”.

This Soviet-style politicization of Canada's bureaucracy is unethical, and it breaks the government's own rules. Why force neutral public servants to do the Prime Minister's partisan bidding? Why cover it up?