Debates of May 21st, 2013

Question No. 1279

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

With regard to section 347 of the Criminal Code, broken down by fiscal year for each fiscal year since 2006-2007: (a) how many investigations has the RCMP carried out into contraventions of this provision; (b) how many charges have been laid; and (c) how many successful prosecutions have been carried out?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, section 347 of the Criminal Code is not an offence that falls solely under the RCMP mandate. It is an offence that is also reported to and investigated by the local police force. The RCMP is the police of jurisdiction in many smaller communities across the country, but not usually the police of jurisdiction in the larger urban municipalities.

In the RCMP’s former records management system, called “Police Information Retrieval System”, PIRS, section 347 of the Criminal Code is mapped to a general violation code called “Other Criminal Code” along with a multitude of other offences.

A manual case-by-case analysis of all these files would be required in order to provide a complete and accurate response to all parts of this question. Such an analysis cannot be completed within the time available, as a significant amount of time and resources would be required in order to do so.

Question No. 1293

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

With regard to the National Geographic television program “Border Security: Canada’s Front Line”: (a) what is the total cost to the government for any support provided by the Department of Public Safety or by the Canadian Border Services Agency in relation to the program; (b) in what form or forms has this support been provided; (c) what are the contents of any agreements signed by the government related to this program; and (d) for both the (i) Department of Public Safety and (ii) Canadian Border Services Agency, what is the total cost of all resources that have been allocated to negotiating, researching, or communicating the government’s participation in this television program?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, Public Safety Canada did not incur any costs related to the National Geographic television program “Border Security: Canada’s Front Line”.

With regard to (a), the production takes place at no extra cost to the CBSA’s front-line operations. For season one of the production, the CBSA incurred an internal cost of less than $60,000, primarily for salary dollars for the required administrative support, including on-site oversight within one region. Season two will be twice the number of episodes and involve more than one region. As such, the CBSA has estimated internal costs to be approximately $160,000 for the required administrative oversight.

There is no exchange of monies between the production company and the CBSA. ¸

With regard to (b), the costs noted in part (a) relate to the CBSA providing administrative support such as regional on-site filming oversight to ensure privacy and operational security during production.

With regard to (c), there are three multimedia agreements between the CBSA and Force Four Productions related to the documentary series, one to govern the production of the demonstration reel and a separate one for each of the first and second seasons in which the CBSA has participated. The multimedia agreements detail the working relationship, responsibilities and requirements of each party and outline the precautions necessary to safeguard Canadian laws as well as CBSA employees, facilities, operations and procedures.

Further, the agreement stipulates that while editorial control rests with the production company, the CBSA will review the content of each episode before airing to verify that operational, legal and privacy considerations are met.

With regard to (d)(ii), no incremental costs were incurred by the CBSA for negotiating, researching or communicating the government’s participation in the documentary series.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if a supplementary response to Question No. 1259, originally tabled on May 9, as well as Questions Nos. 1267, 1272 and 1275 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 1259

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to written questions Q-1226 to Q-1237, Q-1244 and Q-1245, what is the estimated cost to the government for each response to each question?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1267

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office, as of February 1, 2013, how many people did it employ and of those, (i) how many make a salary of $100 000 a year or more, (ii) how many make a salary of $50 000 a year or less?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1272

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

With regard to Order Paper questions: (a) for questions Q-819 through Q-1259, what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1275

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

With regard to the participation of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) in the reality show Border Security: Canada’s Front Line: (a) what has been the total cost for the Agency’s participation in the reality show to date and what is the total cost of the production agreement between CBSA and Force Four Entertainment; (b) how many episodes did CBSA agree to and over what time period will the episodes be filmed; (c) what provisions are in place to ensure that CBSA officers and subjects are not exploited; (d) who reviewed and analyzed the show's proposal and what were their comments; (e) what is the examination and approval process for footage; (f) how are CBSA officers recruited for participation in the show; (g) how many officers have participated in the show and how many have refused to participate in the program and on what grounds; (h) how are subjects recruited for the show; (i) are subjects asked whether or not they would like to participate in the show or are they required to sign a consent form prior to being filmed; (j) are subjects given incentives to participate in the program, either monetary or otherwise, and if so what; (k) has the CBSA received any formal complaints with regards to the show and if so, what was the nature of said complaints and what was CBSA's response; (l) were any concerns raised within CBSA about its participation in the show, and if so, what was the nature of those concerns and from whom did they come; (m) what were the CBSA's stated reasons for participation in the show; (n) what are the established parameters for a case's inclusion in the program; (o) on what grounds will CBSA refuse inclusion of a case; (p) does CBSA have a veto over what footage is aired and, if so, has it been used and for what reasons; and (q) what measures are in place to ensure that the program does not violate the Privacy Act?

(Return tabled)

Repayment of Senate Expenses

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice of two requests for an emergency debate.

I will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North first.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 52 to request an emergency debate on the issue of the handling of the repayment of Senate expenses by Senator Mike Duffy and the conduct of the officials in the Prime Minister's Office in this process.

This is a very serious situation that has the potential to undermine the confidence Canadians have in their institutions.

The issue raises very troubling questions that have yet to be answered and that merit the immediate attention of the House. We are talking about the most senior official in the Government of Canada, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, providing a substantial cash gift to a sitting parliamentarian. This raises a whole host of issues in terms of whether this arrangement was fully compliant with the rules of the Senate, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Parliament of Canada Act or the Criminal Code.

There are allegations that Senator Duffy was promised by the Prime Minister's Office that a Senate committee would “go easy on him” if he kept his mouth shut. We are talking here about the executive branch of government paying a parliamentarian to stay quiet and, in return, promising an outcome in an independent Senate committee. This is extremely serious.

The Criminal Code is clear. Paying a public official to undertake a certain action is bribery or corruption. The facts in this case are that the most senior adviser to the Prime Minister paid a senator $90,000 and had a Senate report altered, and then the Prime Minister's Office ordered that senator to keep his mouth shut and not participate in an external audit. This order was followed.

There are so many unanswered questions. The Prime Minister's Office has stated that the Prime Minister was aware of the agreement but did not know “the specifics” or “the means”.

What was the Prime Minister made aware of, and when was he made aware?

Under what authority was the Prime Minister's chief of staff able to promise Senator Duffy a certain outcome in a supposedly independent Senate report?

When did the Prime Minister become aware that the funds Senator Duffy was paying back were not in fact his own? Why did he allow Senator Duffy, his spokespeople and his Senate leader to keep up the pretence that they were?

There can be no more important issue for the House of Commons than ensuring the integrity of our parliamentary institutions. It is for this reason that the House must debate this issue and must get to the bottom of it so that Canadians can have trust in their institutions.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, on the same topic.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition's motion also calls for an emergency debate on the Senate scandal and on the involvement of the Prime Minister's former chief of staff in repaying what were likely fraudulent expense claims made by a Conservative senator appointed by the Prime Minister.

Many years ago, Shakespeare wrote that, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” I think the same thing is happening on the other side of Parliament. There is a bad smell, and it seems to be coming from the Prime Minister's Office and back rooms.

Now is the time for some real housecleaning, which was not done, despite the Conservatives' broken promises to be an honest government with integrity, after what we saw with the Liberals' scandals. The Senate has become a refuge for party hacks and people who financially support the political party. It is no big deal if a Conservative candidate loses an election. He will be rewarded with a Senate appointment.

Today, senators are helping themselves to money, facing allegations of fraud over their primary and secondary residences and being reimbursed. When they are caught red-handed, they call on their Conservative buddies, who pay back the money from their deep pockets.

So many rules have been broken here that it is time for parliamentarians to be able to talk about it. Unfortunately, we do not get answers from the government during question period. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does not seem to be available to answer questions from the media and journalists. Once he made his speech, he ran out the door to hop on a plane and flee the country.

Parliamentarians have a job to do. The police should also have a job to do to shed light on what happened with these housing allowance payments. We need clear, specific and strict rules. This money belongs to taxpayers and the public. People who call open-line shows are furious. They are sick of the scandals from this Conservative government. This was the last straw.

We need a forum. We need to be able to discuss this. That is why the NDP is moving this motion. We want to hold an emergency debate on the Senate scandal and on the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office. We need to get to the bottom of this. It has gone on long enough.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I did not receive a notice from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

These requests for emergency debates are not debatable. Does she have a different point of order?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no, I was hoping to provide additional support. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I appreciate the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for raising this issue. However, I am not satisfied that it meets the test of the standing order for emergency debates.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt on a point of order.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you. You said it does not meet the test. I was wondering if you could elaborate on what you mean by not meeting the test.

We in this House are concerned by what reeks on the other side.

I was just wondering what you meant by it does not meet the test. Would you please elaborate and explain for the layman to understand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt may know that these questions are not debatable, nor do they require the Speaker to elaborate on all the reasons why he or she determines a decision. I found it did not meet the test.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.