Gerry Byrne

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 16th, 2014]

With regard to the financing and operation of the Confederation Bridge: (a) what are the amounts of toll revenues reported to the government as required by the Bridge Operating Agreement between the government and Strait Crossing Development Incorporated (SCDI), broken down by year and/or report from 1997 to the most current report; (b) has the government ever audited or evaluated SDCI’s records or remittances, as provided for in the Bridge Operating Agreement; (c) if the answer to (b) is yes, what were the key findings of the audits and what are the document identification references to these audits or evaluations; (d) if the answer to (b) is no, why has the government not audited SCDI’s records to date; (e) what has the government paid to SCDI or Strait Crossing Finance Inc. (SCFI) annually to retire the bonds issued by SCFI for the financing of the Confederation Bridge; (f) what are the government’s forecasted annual payments to SCDI or SCFI for the purposes of retiring the bonds for the remainder of its 35-year agreement with SCDI or SCFI; and (g) what are the amounts of any payments made owing to the government's guarantee to SCDI of a minimum of $13.9 million (1996 dollars) per year in toll revenue?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2014]

With regard to the administration of all government departments, crown corporations and agencies as well as other entities within federal jurisdiction that offer goods or services to parliamentarians, to parliamentarians' staff, to the spouses or dependents of parliamentarians, or more generally to the offices of parliamentarians, hereafter referred to as “eligible parliamentary persons”, at either no cost or at a reduced cost compared to the rate normally charged to a member of the general public who might seek the provision of the same or a similar good or service from the government: without consideration or inclusion of any occasional discounts or promotions for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013, and not including those goods or services provided directly to any eligible parliamentary persons under the normal rules of the administration of the House of Commons, the Senate or by the Library of Parliament, (a) which federal entities provided goods or services to those eligible parliamentary persons at either no cost or at a reduced cost; (b) what is each respective good or service thus provided, and what is the rationale for offering such no-cost goods or services or discounts to eligible parliamentary persons; (c) broken down by each such individual product or service, what is the cost to each federal entity, as measured in revenue that would otherwise not have been lost, of providing such goods or services to eligible parliamentary persons, calculated for each fiscal year and using the undiscounted rate that would be normally charged to members of the general public as the comparative basis for such a calculation; (d) what was the net financial position of each federal crown corporation or operating agency providing such goods or services before the provision of federal subsidies are considered in each fiscal year?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2014]

With regard to the recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band under the Indian Act, and the administration of the enrollment of applicants in the Founding Members list: (a) how many applications for enrollment in the Band were received by the Enrollment Clerks and by the Enrollment Committee, broken down by month from December 2008 to November 2012; (b) how many applications were accepted for membership by the Enrollment Committee, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (c) broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013, (i) how many applications were rejected for membership by the Enrollment Committee, and of these, (ii) how many were appealed by the applicant to the Appeals Master, (iii) how many were overturned by the Appeals Master, (iv) how many were confirmed by the Appeals Master; (d) how many applications that were approved by the Enrollment Committee were appealed by Canada to the Appeals Master, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (e) how many of the applications were rejected by Canada under the provisions of 4.2.16 of the 2008 Qalipu Mi’kmaq Recognition Agreement, broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013; (f) broken down by month from December 2008 to May 2013, (i) how many of the applications who were rejected by Canada, under the provisions of 4.2.16 of the 2008 Qalipu Mi’kmaq Recognition Agreement concerning Canadian Aboriginal Ancestry, were appealed to the Appeals Master, (ii) how many of these rejections were overturned by the Appeals Master, (iii) how many were confirmed by the Appeals Master; (g) how many internal or external audits or reviews were conducted by the government that included matters of the enrollment process between December 2008 and March 2014, (i) what is the government’s document reference number for each of these audits or reviews, (ii) when were these audits or reviews completed; (h) on what date did the government first make contact with the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band or the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to register or express concerns about the enrollment process; (i) what are the total expenses paid to, or on behalf of, Mr. Fred Caron in relation to his work on Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band enrollment process and other issues from December 2008 to March 2014, broken down by (i) professional fees, (ii) travel and related disbursements, (iii) support services, (iv) other expenses; (j) how many applicants were informed that their applications were deemed invalid by reason of failure to provide a long form birth certificate as part of the applicants' application package, broken down by month from December 2008 to March 2014; and (k) how many applications were deemed invalid by reason of the applicant’s failure to sign the application in all required locations of the membership application form, broken down by month from December 2008 to March 2014?

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if we coined the parliamentary secretary's turn of phrase from some days ago, we would say that the Chief Electoral Officer should not be wearing a team jersey. He questioned the whole independence of the Chief Electoral Officer.

I want to remind the House that in September 2011, every agent of Parliament, including the Chief Electoral Officer, wrote to the Speaker and copied the letter to three parliamentary committees, the public accounts committee, the access to information, privacy and ethics committee, and the procedure and House affairs committee.

The seven agents of Parliament asked to meet with parliamentarians, to meet in committee, to talk about the independence and the accountability of the agents of Parliament, including the Chief Electoral Officer.

This side over here had nothing to do with it, would not do anything with it, and refused them entry to the committees. That discussion has never occurred.

The Auditor General and the Chief Electoral Officer asked Parliament three years ago to meet with us and to talk about this. Why did the government not accept the invitation? Why were they not invited to committee? That is what I want to know.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Communication on the use of the jets is normally achieved through filing an access to information request. One suggestion I would offer is that there should be an open portal, a recorded log on the use of all Challenger jets. In it would be recorded the purpose of the flight. It would be made available on the Internet for all to see. Those who were part of the flight manifest would be recorded. It would also note whether they were government employees or were associated with the government directly. If they were not, it would note what exactly their role was and why they were on the jet.

Instead of having to file access to information requests on an event-by-event basis, which can be administratively cumbersome, having an interface where this information is open and available on a portal makes a lot of sense to me.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question on the use of the Challenger aircraft by the executive, or was it actually a question about the use by the NDP of House of Commons resources?

The hon. member raises a valid point. The use of House of Commons resources to establish offices outside the national capital region by the leader's office is actually being examined by the Board of Internal Economy. That question will be answered through a set process. Obviously, on its face, there seems to be a disconnect between the normal purpose of those resources versus what they are being used for by the NDP.

We live in challenging times. These are challenging questions, but we have a responsibility to ask them and to have them answered. That is why it would have been very helpful for the members of the government to have come forward today with a stronger blueprint for the use of executive aircraft by the executive of the government.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the sometimes dishevelled but always chivalrous member for Winnipeg North.

If we could get to the heart of this particular issue, the House of Commons has spent nearly a day talking about a particular topic, a high-end and sensitive subject about jets and a privileged and executive class that gets to access the jets.

A Canadian, on a normal day in a normal lifetime, will never set foot on an executive private jet to go from one point to another within our country or to another country. It is a privileged notion, but it is also part of doing business in a country as affluent, as vast, and as broad as Canada.

We are talking about this issue because it is a touchstone. It is an example of whether we are stewards of the public trust and stewards of the tax dollar and understand that our roles and responsibilities go beyond the norm in making sure that not only are we ensuring the integrity of the public purse but are seen to be ensuring it.

We are talking access by the ruling party, the front bench, and occasionally guests on board private jet aircraft going to different events. I think we all recognize that a prime minister of Canada has unique responsibilities and circumstances that require his or her access to these types of travel services.

What I note about the debate is that we have not necessarily done a very good job of isolating the issues, proposing and formulating solutions, and seeking consensus on solutions. I suggest we have not used this debate very wisely because I really have not heard a concrete agenda come forward as to how we can move the goalposts and actually increase the level of accountability, create a consensus as to what that accountability should be, and then enact it.

I have heard a lot of talk during the course of the morning and afternoon about “That crowd did it, so do not expect us to do anything different” or “We never had a chance to do it, so we can say whatever we want.” It is not really so simple or trite as just that. Canadians who are listening to this debate carefully are asking for a little higher discussion and resolution to evolve.

If we simply say the goalpost is what was done in the past and anyone who did anything that may bear criticism in the past is no longer competent to participate in the debate, the debate shuts down pretty quickly. In fact, just about every debate that will ever occur in the House will shut down very quickly if that is the standard we use. One of our objectives, responsibilities, and requirements as parliamentarians is to move the debate and the standard forward. We have not done that today.

For example, if we were to simply say there is a vacant seat on an aircraft and that it is therefore not only reasonable but responsible for a civilian non-government employee, someone outside the government's normal business, to occupy that seat on a private executive jet to travel with a formal government party to another location, I am not so sure that would bear scrutiny if we were to apply the same principle to a military aircraft going between Trenton and Halifax. If I wanted my son's hockey team to go on it because it was empty and had some space in it, and my son's hockey team was going to Halifax for a tournament, why could the whole hockey team not be put on that military plane to go to Halifax?

It does not seem that this is a sensible option, administratively, from the point of view of ensuring that taxpayers' assets are protected and that stewardship of those assets is ensured. The military would probably be the first to say that it is not a responsible use of defence assets. Why is it then okay for a civilian, a friend of someone, a business partner, or a friend of a political party to accompany the Prime Minister on that jet if there is an empty seat on it? Why would someone not do that? It is because there is a protocol.

Perhaps it is not the right standard to use to simply say that if there is a seat vacant, it is open for the next occupant who might want to use it. How would we price that seat if indeed we were to use it? Perhaps I might be able to bid on a plane ticket at a charity auction. If the plane ticket came in at $50 to go between Halifax and Ottawa, maybe that would be the market value of the seat. That is what I saw here today. There was a little bit of trying to determine the lowest value of a seat. We would establish that by getting the lowest fare one could possibly find and using it as the benchmark. There might be a lot of $50 seats in private executive jets in the very near future.

I am not so sure this is the right standard to use for pricing this particular service and for making sure that the taxpayers' investment is protected.

What the jet should be used for is also relevant and important. It would have been good if we could have come to a consensus within the House as to whether it is right for the Prime Minister to use a Department of National Defence Challenger jet aircraft to go to political events. The answer could be yes if we were to determine that the Prime Minister has certain responsibilities and has to travel on this aircraft, based on RCMP security advice. The question then becomes whether it is something that should occur on a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis. We did not establish that.

The other thing we need to establish is whether it is fair for the Prime Minister, who has to use these jets, to expect the taxpayers to transport his family to different events. Again, the argument comes back to the Prime Minister having to travel by this aircraft to go to other locations in the country. The question then becomes not whether it is responsible but how often it is responsible for the Prime Minister to use this jet.

If we establish a credible standard of accountability, give people confidence that we understand that the stewardship of taxpayers' dollars is our primary objective, and at the same time take complicated matters, assimilate a variety of issues, and come forward with a credible plan that meets a 21st century standard, we will have done our jobs. I cannot see how we have done that here today, because we are really no further ahead in establishing a reasonable, responsible standard for an executive of the Prime Minister's Office or a minister of national defence to use when allocating or accounting for these resources and reporting the use of these resources to the public. Maybe at another time we might be in a position to do so.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referenced the use of government jets by the Canadian Armed Forces, which is clearly an effective and efficient use of government assets. Would the hon. member disclose to the House the number of times he has travelled on a Challenger aircraft, to what locations, who was onboard, and what was the parliamentary purpose involved?

[Ethics, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the government that there are indeed rules to separate the use of taxpayer-funded resources from political party fundraising.

The government should have gotten this lesson after seeing the NDP accused of using taxpayer-funded mailings and satellite offices to subsidize its own political operations.

Now we have learned that the Prime Minister has been flying his own top fundraiser on his government plane and reimbursing only a fraction of the actual cost back to the people. He has also been increasing his own private use of the Challenger jets by over 300% since forming a majority government.

Will the government rise to the challenge and stop subsidizing the Conservative Party's fundraising efforts by using Challenger jets?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 6th, 2014]

With regard to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for each year from 2003 to 2013, what was the CPI for each household income quintile given the goods and services typically purchased by each quintile according to the average household spending patterns?