Debates of Dec. 6th, 2013

Question No. 70

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

With regard to the purchase of televisions for departments, agencies and crown corporations: a) what is the amount spent per year for each department agency and crown corporation on televisions for each of the last seven years; b) what is the proportion of those amounts spent on high definition or 3D televisions respectively; c) what is the amount per year for televisions in the offices of ministers, deputy ministers or CEOs listed by agency and name; d) what are the proportions of the amounts listed in c) for HD or 3D televisions respectively?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 73

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

With regard to the government’s allocation of the public service budget for each fiscal year starting with 2006-2007 to present: (a) what is the total number of staff, by department, in each Executive (EX) and Deputy Minister (DM) pay category; (b) what is the total number of staff in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canadian Forces, Canada Border Services Agency and Correctional Services Canada, receiving the maximum remuneration permitted, including bonuses?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 74

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

With regard to the most recent Supreme Court Appointment process: (a) on what dates was the Quebec Government consulted and who was consulted; (b) when was the Barreau du Quebec consulted; (c) when were judges from the Quebec Court of Appeal (QCCA) consulted; (d) concerning Justice Marc Nadon specifically, (i) on what dates was the Quebec Government consulted regarding his nomination, (ii) when was the Barreau du Quebec consulted, (iii) when were judges from the QCCA consulted; (e) when was the issue of Justice Nadon’s eligibility first raised, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) with what response; (f) still concerning Justice Nadon, (i) from whom did the government seek legal opinions, (ii) on what dates, (iii) at what cost, broken down by opinion, (iv) how many lawyers from Quebec were consulted on Justice Nadon’s eligibility, (v) how many judges from Quebec were consulted, (vi) what scholars from Quebec were consulted; (g) by what measure was the litigation risk evaluated relative to Justice Nadon’s appointment, (i) by whom, (ii) on what date, (iii) what communications were sent between the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice regarding the risk of litigation surrounding the appointment; (h) with respect to assessing Justice Nadon’s eligibility, (i) what was the role of the Department of Justice, (ii) what was the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, (iii) what was the role of the Minister of Justice, (iv) what steps did the Minister of Justice take to assure himself of Justice Nadon’s eligibility to assume a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court of Canada; (i) how much funding is allocated to any defence needed to a legal challenge to Justice Nadon’s appointment; (j) is the government aware of any instance in which a Supreme Court justice has stepped aside from his or her duties; (k) what steps is the government taking proactively (i) to ensure that Quebec is not under-represented at the Supreme Court of Canada while Justice Nadon is recused, (ii) to ensure gender parity at the Supreme Court of Canada; (l) what steps has the government taken with regard to addressing the lack of racial diversity at the Supreme Court of Canada; (m) who developed the questionnaire provided to judges in the most recent round of Supreme Court appointments, (i) what specific questions were asked of judges, (ii) what information was sought from potential Justices during the process; (n) for each of the last six appointment cycles, what were the questions given to judges and what additional information was sought from candidates; (o) what steps are being taken to modify the process of Supreme Court appointments for the next vacancy?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 77

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

With regard to removal orders, by country and for each calendar year from 2006 to 2013: (a) what are the number of issued (i) departure orders, (ii) exclusions orders, (iii) deportation orders; (b) for each category of orders under (a), what is the total number of people issued removal orders by country to which they were to be removed; and (c) for each category of orders under (a), how many of these orders were successfully executed?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 86

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

With regard to the Department of National Defence Jericho property in Vancouver, British Columbia, which has been declared surplus and identified as a “strategic disposal”: (a) when will the property be transferred to Canada Lands for disposal; (b) what are the processes, stages, and time frames for disposal; (c) what consultations will be conducted, including with the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver community, First Nations (including the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations), and the general public; (d) what consultations have already taken place; and (e) are the lands of the former Kitsilano Coast Guard base implicated in the sale of the Jericho Lands and, if so, how?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 98

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

With regard to the commercial wharves in ridings in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces: (a) which ones are in operation today, broken down by (i) province, (ii) riding, (iii) municipality; (b) of those mentioned in (a), what are the estimated repair costs, broken down by (i) province, (ii) riding, (iii) municipality, (iv) wharf; and (c) of those mentioned in (a), what are the estimated maintenance costs, broken down by (i) province, (ii) riding, (iii) municipality, (iv) wharf?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. There is so much that could be said about the bill that limiting one to only 20 minutes does somewhat of a disservice because of the amount of content in the bill. It can be a challenge to take into consideration the numerous pieces of legislation that have been incorporated into Bill C-4.

There are probably five or six points I want to emphasize, but I will start off with regard to the government's attitude toward presenting budget bills. Canadians are becoming more and more aware of the majority Conservative style of governance in the House, which has been very disrespectful in terms of democracy. Democracy in the House of Commons has been lacking in allowing for proper diligent debate and proceedings on a wide spectrum of different issues.

We have witnessed the Prime Minister and the instructions he has given to the PMO that the best way to pass legislation under the Conservative majority is to start compiling it, submit it to the PMO and it will be bundled altogether, forwarded to the Minister of Finance and be brought in through budget legislation.

Not to be outdone by previous budgets like this under the same Conservative majority, this time not only did the Conservatives prorogue the session by limiting the number of days we would sit this fall, but they also once again put in time allocation on this legislation. It is so very bizarre and very undemocratic.

Unfortunately, we have found that the Prime Minister, through the Prime Minister's Office, has done a great disservice by not allowing for legitimate debate on a wide variety of issues. I plan to touch base on a number of those.

Things have really changed for the Prime Minister. I was provided a very interesting quote. I may have said this in the past. I have had opportunity to do so because it was last year around this time when we had another mega budget bill. Let there be no doubt before I cite the quote that it is important to recognize that no prime minister in the history of our country has taken such liberties in bringing so much legislation forward under one budget bill.

Let us reflect on the days when the Prime Minister was in opposition. What did he have to say about legislation of this nature? I quote what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons:

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

He asked government members in particular to worry about the implications of omnibus bills for democracy and the functionality of Parliament.

That is what he said when he was talking about a bill that was just over 100 pages long. This is the Prime Minister who has introduced thousands of pages through a few budget bills, effectively changing 100-plus pieces of legislation with a few budget bills.

That is why it is an assault on democracy. It is an assault on the House of Commons, the manner in which the majority Conservative/Reform government has brought forward budget legislation. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for what takes place within his cabinet and his government. There is no doubt in my mind that he does rule the Prime Minister's Office and that he is very much aware.

That bring me to the next topic. We know why the Prime Minister prorogued the session back in September. It was because he did not want to have the House sitting. He avoided the day in and day out accountability in the House, because he was not happy with what was being reported in a sequence of events that portrayed corruption and fraud in the Prime Minister's Office.

As a result, we lost weeks of debate earlier this fall because the Prime Minister did not want to come back. Why did he not want to come back? He had a very serious problem, and still does, and it is not going to go away. It is going to continue to be there and it will ultimately be dragged out, all the way to the next federal election in 2015.

There is so much more that has not been disclosed. We will ultimately ensure that we get more information as we sit, because Canadians deserve to know the honest truth, the full truth in what has taken place in regard to the scandal in and around the Prime Minister's Office.

I pointed this out to a number of individuals in looking at the Prime Minister's actions and trying to understand them. All those people are around the Prime Minister are so close to him. There was the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Nigel Wright. This individual had the ears of the Prime Minister on a daily basis. He in essence paid off a $90,000 debt that was owed by Senator Mike Duffy.

The Prime Minister likes to say that he had taken corrective actions. We are not too sure if, after it became public, what Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, did but within days of when it became public he was no longer the chief of staff.

There were no RCMP charges or anything of that nature. It just became public. The chief of staff at least acknowledged that something wrong had been done. We do not know if he was actually fired or released or took it upon himself to leave. We do not know, or at least it is not clear. It is one of the things the Prime Minister has not been very clear on.

What we do know is that he has not been consistent.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

How is this relevant to the discussion?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What about the most recent questions—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

We are talking about the budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a series of questions that we have in regard to Mr. Gerstein.

When we look at what has happened with Mr. Gerstein and we do the contrast between Nigel Wright and Senator Gerstein, we have to wonder why the Prime Minister has not done anything in regard to that.

It seems there is a different standard of testing of a moral compass. We just do not know what the PMO is doing on this. Staff members who worked in the PMO and who were directly involved in the conflict or scandal now work for other ministers.

All of this has stolen a great deal of attention away from what should be talked about a whole lot more, and that is in fact the budget and the impact, from our perspective, that these budgetary measures are taking on the middle class in Canada. That has been a huge priority for the leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party as a whole, holding the government accountable on the issue of the middle class and how the government's policy has not been in the interest of those people.

However, it has been overshadowed because of the scandal that has been taking place inside the Prime Minister's Office. This is the reason why—

[The Acting Speaker, Dan Albas]

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has not alluded much to Bill C-4 and that is what we are debating. Could you get him to come back on track, please?

[The Acting Speaker, Dan Albas]

I will inform the member that the tradition of this place is to allow members to have a wide amount of discretion. I imagine the member will continue his speech on the theme of the debate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member were to reflect on the last two paragraphs prior to him standing, I was talking about the budget. It was absolutely relevant.

I can appreciate that the Conservative members are very sensitive about what is taking place in the Prime Minister's Office. I know if I were them, I would be. I would want answers to many questions. I sense it at the doors of people's homes in my own constituency. I have had the opportunity to knock on a lot of doors in the last couple of months and to have a lot of discussions with many of my constituents. It is a very genuine and serious concern, and we still do not know the full truth. I hope the Prime Minister and the PMO will see the merit of taking advantage of the offer that was suggested by the member for Avalon with regard to having individuals testify before an ethics committee.

With regard to the issues within the budget, I made reference at the beginning of my speech to the size of the bill and the different types of legislation that are being incorporated into Bill C-4—