House of Commons Hansard #257 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was heritage.

Topics

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 56th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of committees of this House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 56th report later today.

Parliament of Canada ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Independent

Bruce Hyer Independent Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

, seconded by the member for Vancouver Quadra, moved for leave to introduce Bill C-512, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (confidence motion).

He said: Mr. Speaker, in an ongoing attempt to make this House more functional and democratic, I rise to introduce a bill to end the abuse of the convention of confidence in this House.

This bill would curb the excessive power of the Prime Minister to declare any vote a matter of confidence and to play chicken with legislation. It would also mean that budget and money bills are no longer confidence motions by default.

Only a motion that explicitly stated “that this House has no confidence in the government” would trigger a government to fall.

It would allow for a 14-day cooling-off period to re-establish confidence before Parliament would be dissolved. It would also mean the government would actually have to abide by its own fixed election date legislation.

I hope this would lead to greater government accountability, more empowered MPs and more co-operative governance.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 56th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier today, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented to the House on Monday, May 14, 2012, be concurred in.

I want to first say what an honour it is to rise again in this great chamber on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, particularly the excellent chair, the member for Sherbrooke, on the report regarding the changes to the Lobbying Act. This is work that was badly needed. On the whole, it was not too much of a partisan fight because we all, as parliamentarians, have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the secret back doors for lobbyists are closed.

Unfortunately, the issue of back-door lobbying does, however, remain a major problem with the government. I want to say at the beginning that we are not talking about honest lobbyists who meet with members of Parliament, because it is their job to begin and facilitate discussions on issues. There is nothing wrong with that. It is about the use of backroom access, the whole issue of who one knows in the PMO. These are issues we have to root out if there is going to be confidence that Parliament and government work for the people and not just for the insiders. Unfortunately, there have been numerous examples under the government, once again, where it is who one knows in the PMO.

In terms of what was studied under the Lobbying Act, there are a number of examples that are very concerning. I would like to raise a few of them as we look through the recommendations in the report. Certainly, one of the most disturbing is the role of Bruce Carson, who is now up on criminal charges for influence peddling. On June 27, 2012, Mr. Bruce Carson was charged by the RCMP on one count of influence peddling for his role in illegal lobbying through his friends in the Conservative Party.

The disturbing thing about Bruce Carson is that this is a man with a history of fraud convictions. This is a man who had already been convicted as a criminal and yet the Prime Minister invited him into his office as his most senior advisor. We see the ethics problems swirling around the Prime Minister and his judgment problems with supporting people like Patrick Brazeau, despite the numerous red flags that came up, telling us that Pamela Wallin's expense claims were perfectly acceptable, that he had personally seen them, and now she has had to resign in disgrace, as well as telling us that Mike Duffy showed real leadership in using the illegal cheque he received for $90,000.

There are certainly questions about the judgment of the Prime Minister, but this goes back to the question of Bruce Carson, who was brought into the Prime Minister's office as a senior advisor even though he had been convicted of fraud. Then Bruce Carson used that position as an insider to the Prime Minister to set up an illegal lobbying scheme with his young fiancée, Michele McPherson. Their scheme was that she was representing a clean water plan. We need clean water on reserves, but there is something very tawdry about the idea that these insiders were going to cash in on the need of desperately poor first nations for clean water.

Mr. Carson used his influence as an insider friend of the Prime Minister, so that when the former top chief advisor to the Prime Minister started making calls to people, they answered the calls. That is the difference between illegal lobbying versus legal lobbying, and it is one of the loopholes we tried to close. Under the Lobbying Act now, there is a certain threshold before people have to report their lobbying activities. I believe it is 25% of their time. If less than 25% of their time is spent lobbying, then they do not have to report it. When someone is an insider, all he or she needs to do is make a call. He or she does not have to spend 40 hours a week banging on doors, like all the run-of-the-mill lobbyists with their suitcases and PowerPoint presentations. All an insider has to do is make a call. That is the loophole we were trying to close.

Mr. Bruce Carson, convicted fraud artist and personal friend of the Prime Minister, got into the Prime Minister's office. How did he get past the Privy Council or anybody around the Prime Minister? It should have sounded alarm bells. Fraudsters should not be put in the position of having the ear of the Prime Minister. Then he stepped out. Once again, it is the issue of the revolving door, which we have tried to close as the lobbying loophole, so that people cannot just step outside and then call back in to their former pals inside. The closing of the revolving door is an important recommendation that we put forward to make sure that door stays closed, but it did not stay closed in the case of Bruce Carson.

He and his girlfriend tried to cash in through their friends in Indian affairs. They were trying to call the former Indian affairs minister to say, “Hey, we have a deal for you.” What was at stake was over $250 million, so they would have made a cool $25 million. There is no real incentive for this illegal lobbyist to cough up.

This was another recommendation that the New Democrats brought forward and that the Conservatives opposed. We feel it is really important that the lobbying commissioner have the authority to be able to charge fines to those who do not follow the rules.

This is not to say that she is going to be going after all the honest lobbyists who are doing their run-of-the-mill jobs. It is about the illegal lobbyists. If they stand to make $25 million, why would they come forward? This was all going to be done under the table. The Bruce Carson issue is certainly very disturbing.

Another really concerning issue in terms of insider influence in lobbying is Mr. Nigel Wright, the now-disgraced other key advisor to the Prime Minister. We have Bruce Carson, convicted fraud artist, key advisor to the Prime Minister. He was involved, and now he is up on influence peddling charges. Now we have Mr. Nigel Wright, the other key advisor to the Prime Minister who is involved in his own ethical problems with lobbying.

It is really important to look at this in terms of what has happened with Mr. Nigel Wright now. Mr. Nigel Wright is very well known in the business community, and that is perfectly fair. He is extremely close to Barrick Gold, extremely close to Barrick founder Peter Munk and a very close friend of Anthony Munk, his son.

Mr. Wright worked with Anthony Munk on Onex Corporation, the private equity investment giant. He took a leave of absence from that portfolio to go and work for the Prime Minister.

He was also on the board of directors of the Aurea Foundation, a charitable foundation set up by Peter Munk. Peter Munk has said that he would rank Nigel Wright among the mere handful of people he has met in whom he has complete trust. Have I also mentioned that he is the godfather to Anthony Munk's son? This guy is like family.

The Conservatives were telling us that Nigel Wright is as straight as they come in terms of ethics and that we would never have to worry about Nigel Wright. In April 2012, our Prime Minister was down in South America. He was at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia in mid-April. Our Prime Minister, of course, likes to decide that he is a mini-Maggie Thatcher sometimes, so he stepped out at this conference and started shooting his mouth off about the Malvinas.

One has to wonder what the Prime Minister was thinking, going down to South America and deciding that he was going to start to wave Maggie Thatcher's legacy on the Falkland-Malvinas situation. He upset the Argentinians terribly. The Argentinians were very upset, and the president of Argentina asked herself what she was even doing there, listening to this guy. Then she left and started putting the screws to Canadian businesses in Argentina as a result of our Prime Minister, “Mr. I-know-everything-about-the-world, but I do not have any of the power to back it up”.

One of the screws they started to put was to Barrick, which had a multi-billion-dollar gold operation that it was trying to get off the ground in Argentina. However, thanks to our Prime Minister and his decision to be a mini-Union Jack, Argentina was putting the screws to Barrick.

What did the Barrick people do? They called Nigel Wright. They called right into the Prime Minister's office, because they knew Nigel Wright.

The Lobbying Act and the conflict of interest guidelines are really clear. No one is supposed to be able to just call their insider friends and say, “Fix it”. Barrick called, not once, not twice, but three times. There was a meeting set up. There were phone calls made. Nigel Wright was the point person, the man who is the godfather to Peter Munk's grandson, the man whom Peter Munk said he trusts, out of a mere handful of people in whom he has complete trust.

Nigel Wright was playing this role of friend of the Munks, friend of Barrick Gold and insider to the Prime Minister. That is not the way ethical government is supposed to run. This is a government that promised government was not going to be run on who people know in the PMO.

If the alarm bells had gone off at that time, we might not be in the trouble we are in now with Mr. Wright, who may have written an illegal $90,000 cheque that contravenes the Parliament of Canada Act.

Under the Parliament of Canada Act, anyone who offers compensation to a senator in a controversy before the Senate has committed an indictable offence. We are talking about a crime being committed out of the Prime Minister's office.

We have a former criminal, Mr. Bruce Carson, who was in the Prime Minister's office. We have Mr. Nigel Wright. Alarm bells should have been going off because of his role with Barrick and his insider influence in the Prime Minister's office. Now we have found out that he has written a secret cheque to cover off a political scandal. Why was that cheque written? Senator Tkachuk said that the political scandal was hurting the Prime Minister, so once again Nigel Wright started to make calls. Instead of receiving the calls, he was making the calls. He was making the calls to the Senate, which is completely inappropriate.

I have never had a lot of respect for what happens in the Senate, but the one thing I do respect is the separation of powers. However, we see that it is the Prime Minister's right hand calling the Senate to find out how they are going to shut down this problem. Senator Tkachuk dutifully changed an in camera report to protect Mike Duffy, and Nigel Wright cut the $90,000 secret cheque.

We have been looking at the issue of gifts under the Lobbying Act and Conflict of Interest Act guidelines. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is actually saying that we need to drop the level of gifts to $50. Of course, the Conservatives are hacking and coughing, because they are going to receive only $50 gifts. What an outrage. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying have spoken about the issue of gifts and the influence gifts have.

When the Commissioner of Lobbying talks about gifts, I am sure she is thinking about box tickets to the Rogers Centre, like our friend from the St. Catharines area received, or perhaps an expensive bottle of wine. No one is thinking about $90,000 even coming close to being a gift. In most places, $90,000 would seem like a bribe. It is pretty staggering that the Conservatives would consider $90,000 a gift.

Under the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest Act, there are clear rules about accepting gifts. Gifts have to be reported. This is the other interesting thing that needs to be addressed. Mike Duffy pocketed the $90,000 and apparently told the Senate, “Do not worry. I went to the bank and got a loan”. If this were perfectly on the up and up, why would he not just say that he called his friend Nigel Wright? This man is a paragon of virtue. He wants to help the poor downtrodden trough-eaters. If one is on the streets and is one of those senators who has not been able to get the latest bottle of champagne, here is Nigel Wright who walks along and says, “Do not worry, because at my table, a place is set for you, and here is your $90,000”.

If Nigel Wright were doing that as his sense of public duty, the Conservatives would be crowing about it. These are not people who are quiet. No, that did not happen.

This is again an issue under the Lobbying and Conflict of Interest Acts, because gifts have to be reported. They pretended on the government side all last week that this was a gift and an attempt to be ethical. I thought I heard the word “heroic” used. That was some heroic gift. A $90,000 secret payout was somehow heroic for the Conservatives. It was honourable, heroic and ethical, and now it is “disappointing”.

If one reads the Conflict of Interest Act or the Lobbying Act, it is not disappointing to cut secret $90,000 cheques; it is illegal. There are reasons it is illegal to pay off politicians. There is a reason rules are put in place.

There are numerous other examples from the government showing why we need to clarify the Lobbying Act. This is interesting. We have studied the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest guidelines, because there are actually two different sets of rules. There are the rules that cover the lobbyists, and those who are lobbied have a different set of rules.

The present Minister of Labour was in a little foofaraw of her own when a number of lobbyists started selling tickets for her fundraiser. These are major ethical issues. It is not as though lobbyists just showed up at her fundraiser, because that happens when a fundraiser is held and people buy tickets. Everyone cannot be screened. However, lobbyists were taking her tickets and selling them. Of course, these guys were in the cement industry, and they thought this was a good way to curry some favour with the minister.

The Commissioner of Lobbying found that these three lobbyists had breached the act. Karen Shepherd said that in the three cases, the lobbyists were in breach of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. She concluded that Bruce Rawson did not register lobbying activity on behalf of two clients. The commissioner found that Will Stewart and Mike McSweeney created an apparent conflict of interest by conducting fundraising activities for a federal cabinet minister whose department they were lobbying.

Our present minister is the one who was hiding in a sleeping bag. When they invited him out to a major weekend to discuss major deals, he went off and slept in his sleeping bag. I was thinking that he must have been the only guy who ever went to that mansion and brought a sleeping bag. However, that was his line. We were supposed to fall for that. He was in his sleeping bag. He was not being lobbied.

Karen Shepherd found that these guys were selling tickets to her political fundraiser. I am sorry. They cannot walk around saying, “Hi. We are friends of the minister. Will you give us 250 bucks?” and then go to the minister and say, “Listen. We sold all these tickets for you. Things should be cool. Let us sit down and maybe talk about our plan”.

We have rules about that. Canadians are fed up with this kind of backroom buddy system that has fed and nurtured the Conservative Party for so long.

The interesting thing is that these two men were found to be in breach of the Lobbying Act, yet the minister was under the conflict of interest guidelines, and she was cleared.

If I am the lobbyist who sold tickets to her fundraiser and was smacked, I would think, “Wait a minute. I sold the tickets for her. She collected the money. She is in the clear. I am not. Why is that?” I am sure the folks back home are wondering the same thing. It is because we have different rules for ministers than we have for lobbyists. Under the rules for ministers, she did not personally benefit. They did not buy her a car; they paid for her political fundraising.

Now, the lobbying commissioner has been very clear. There are problems with this view, because there is the issue of apparent conflict of interest. The government likes just the words “conflict of interest”.

The issue of apparent conflict of interest is very important. What we are talking about is that because she did not exactly personally gain from the fact that her riding association was raising money to get her re-elected, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner said that she did not know if she exactly received a benefit. That leaves me scratching my head. Politics is about political favours being paid at these fundraisers. The lobbying commissioner was really clear that the minister was receiving a benefit.

As New Democrats, we have asked the government to work with us to clear up this loophole. Let us ensure that we have a clear set of rules so that the issue of “apparent” is added to the guidelines for conflict of interest. Ministers would be responsible if people were selling tickets to their fundraisers. That is the issue.

We are not going to do “gotcha” moments and go back over their fundraising lists. Certain people do pay in. Sometimes it is rather sketchy. They were selling the tickets.

We see the difference in the government now. When it came in in 2005-2006, I remember the present foreign affairs minister saying that they were going to shine the light into the dark places. He said that one day when I was asking him questions about the infamous Bev Oda.

Now, Bev Oda crossed as many lines as one could cross. The very first line Bev Oda crossed was before she was the heritage minister. At that time, major reviews were going on before the CRTC. Some of her friends in the broadcast industry held a fundraiser for her in their office. They held the fundraiser. They sold the tickets, and she collected the money. The present Minister of Foreign Affairs made her give the money back. That was the Conservatives in 2006. He said that they were going to shine the light into the dark places.

Going forward to 2013, we do not ever hear about them shining lights anywhere anymore. In fact, they are systematically taking the light bulbs out of Ottawa and making this place as dark as it can be. Folks watching from back home are going to see that our Prime Minister has been skipping out, hiding out, refusing to answer questions on Nigel Wright. Nigel Wright has gone for the high jump. One has to run after him at four in the morning to try to get him while he is jogging to get an honest answer, and we still are not getting an answer.

They are taking the light bulbs out, when they promised to shine a light on the darkness in their activities. This is why the New Democrats have pushed the issue of lobbying and conflict of interest.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Timmins—James Bay for the points he has just made. I was elected following that election of 2005-2006, and I recall the promises that were made. In fact, my own election occurred because there were questions raised about the previous member. We talked about honesty. We talked about shining that light in those places it needed to be. What I would call into question now are the activities of the government.

One of the questions the hon. member raised concerning Mr. Carson, Mr. Wright, Pamela Wallin, Duffy and Brazeau was with regard to the vetting of those particular individuals. If we are to shine a light on anything, we have to shine a light on the vetting process and the very clear errors in that process. We had a DUI case and previous assault involved. It is very clear that there was no honest vetting done. That calls into question the relationship between the PMO or the Prime Minister and these individuals. Why would they bypass it?

Here in the House we have had debate shut down 36 times. We cannot talk about issues in an upfront way and place before Canadians the concerns we have.

I would ask the member to comment on that lack of a vetting process.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, because what we are talking about here, as the stench of corruption is now coming right out of the Prime Minister's Office, is the incompetence around the Prime Minister and his fundamental lack of judgment.

On December 22, 2008, a day that will go down in infamy for really dumb pork-barrel decisions, the Prime Minister chose Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau. At the time, it was known that both Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy were not even eligible to sit in the Senate. That was no problem for the Prime Minister. He has never paid much attention to those things. The other red flag was Patrick Brazeau. There were numerous red flags around Patrick Brazeau, and they were raised. There were issues of misspending and sexual harassment. At the time, the Prime Minister's Office said that anyone who had a problem with Patrick Brazeau was a political ankle biter. The Conservatives stood by him and sent him out on the fundraising circuit. Then when they dumped him under the bus, they said they were disappointed.

Just two weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood and praised Mike Duffy for showing leadership. Here is a guy who refused to pay any money back and received a secret payout from the Prime Minister's Office, and they said that was leadership.

Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood in the House and said that he personally reviewed Pamela Wallin's expenses and would stand by them. I am very interested to see what her expenses say, because this is about the judgment of the Prime Minister.

I did not even get to Bruce Carson, the convicted fraud artist the Prime Minister hired.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his speech because I believe that it is indeed important.

However, I was one of those people who campaigned in 2006 and were defeated because the Conservatives went around everywhere presenting themselves as the white knights of transparency, honesty and the right way of doing politics. When I look at what is happening now, it feels like déjà vu, except that we are dealing with a different political party. Before, it was the Liberals, now it is the Conservatives.

I am surprised by the silence on the benches around and behind the Prime Minister. For the most part, those people went into politics because they believed they would do things differently.

By doing nothing more than applauding for the Prime Minister, are they not complicit in his incompetence, to say the least?

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I remember being in the House with my hon. colleague when she was on the Liberal side. At that time we were on the New Democrat side. We watched as the Conservatives made that promise to Canadians that they would clean up Ottawa, and many Canadians thought that they would, because certainly people were disgusted with the kind of corruption that had gone on under the Liberal watch over 13 years.

What we are seeing here is different. We are talking about corruption that is coming out directly from the Prime Minister's office. They are not rogue operators, not people who are on the sidelines working for the party; these are people within the Prime Minister's office. This is where the corruption is coming out.

I look at some of the Conservative backbenchers who still believe in ethics, and they are scratching their heads alongside the rest of Canada, wondering it how was that a Prime Minister who promised so clearly that he would clean up Ottawa allowed himself to be surrounded by the same kind of insiders and decided that he would start defending the perks and entitlements of people like Mike Duffy rather than defending the interests of the taxpayers.

I think most Canadians are certainly let down. If I were a Reform Party Conservative, I would be very let down at this point, because the stench and the corruption that is coming from the Prime Minister's office needs to be answered. Hiding out in Peru or hiding over in Langevin Block on a Monday, not showing up for work and leaving the backbench of the Conservative Party to explain to their people why their government is now the most corrupt government in Canadian history is certainly a sad situation.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay has pointed out, this is also a question of judgment. It is a question of the judgment of the Prime Minister.

I think it is worth noting that while scandals are engulfing the government, another close ally to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is also engulfed in his own scandals, and that is the mayor of Toronto.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on whether it is important to draw that connection and remind Canadians that indeed the mayor and the Prime Minister are political allies and friends, and whether he may find it useful to remind Canadians that this is a question of judgment on the part of the Prime Minister.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the first time Rob Ford got himself into trouble was on the issue of lobbying. He was misusing his office for lobbying for his pet project. It was amazing that the right-wing base attacked people who stood up on integrity, and said that it was no big deal that he was breaking the rules because he was Rob Ford. That is the right-wing mentality. As long as they break the rules it is okay. If anyone else breaks the rules, they will throw the book at them.

We are seeing a Prime Minister who closely allied himself with Rob Ford and Doug Ford. I have to say, being in this House, I am certainly glad I am taking on Mike Duffy right now and not Doug Ford, because otherwise I might be swimming with the fishes.

The issue is that these people have brought their office down to a level of degradation that is humiliating. There is a level of honour that a person has to have as a public official, regardless of political background. People have to have a sense of honour and code, that they are there to represent the people and not turn it into this barbaric circus of meanness and snideness and insider influence.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a very interesting point. He spoke about actual conflict of interest as opposed to apparent or perceived conflict of interest. What is odd is that conflict of interest itself is a perception. The very existence of the term is a matter of perception.

I can accept a very expensive gift, but even if I do not change my opinion about an issue there is a perception that the gift could influence me. The government does not seem to understand that. Even though we consider ourselves honest and capable of making decisions without being influenced by all the friends and other people who come to the office—that point was clearly made by my colleague—there is still that perception.

I would like him to comment further on the fact that it is about time the Conservatives understood that conflict of interest is real, even though they are telling us not to worry, there is no conflict of interest. As long as the perception remains, Canadians cannot trust the Conservatives.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the apparent conflict of interest when we are dealing with public duties is very important. This is the standard the public expects us to have.

We will make mistakes. Everyone in this House will make mistakes over the years. Some of them will be issues of judgment. We cannot be on top of everything at all times. We have to take responsibility for our mistakes, number one, but we also have to understand that even if we think it is sort of okay, maybe it is loosey-goosey or maybe other people do it, the issue is the appearance. If there is an appearance of a conflict of interest, that is the standard that they are bound by.

We have seen with the government that it has set this limbo bar of ethic accountability and it keeps lowering it each time. As long as one of the government members can slip under that bar, it says that is the standard.

That is not the standard of ethics that this Prime Minister promised. He promised to set a clear standard, and that standard is, when there is an apparent conflict of interest, if it looks like it is wrong, it is wrong.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the debate is deemed adjourned.

Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting. The House will now continue with the remaining business under routine proceedings.

AbortionPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by more than 500 Canadian residents who are calling upon the House of Commons and Parliament to enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.

Nuclear Fuel Processing LicencePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, several months ago now, the members of my community in Davenport awoke to the news that for 50 years, there had been a nuclear processing facility operating in close proximity, in fact right across the road from many of my residents of my community, and no one knew of its existence. Whereas the licence for this nuclear facility clearly stated that they were to have pursued a comprehensive public engagement program with the community, this has never been done.

This petition calls on the government to reopen the licence so the community can have its due say and follow due course in this process.

Search and RescuePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They are raising concerns about the closing of the Canadian Coast Guard Maritime Rescue sub-centre based in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, and asking that the centre be reopened, its staff reinstated and full services restored.

This is a matter that has long been outstanding. People have not forgotten the government has been downgrading search and rescue services across the country.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1283, 1286, 1288, 1291, 1294, 1297 and 1299.

Question No. 1283Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

With regard to the government’s Special Federal Representative on West Coast Infrastructure: (a) what are the terms of reference for the Special Representative's mandate; and (b) what is the Special Representative's budget?

Question No. 1283Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the special federal representative’s mandate can be found on the Privy Council Office’s website at http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/oic-ddc.asp?lang=eng&Page=secretariats &txtOICID=&txtFromDate=2013-03-15&txtToDate=2013-03-31&txtPrecis=Special+Federal+Representative &txtDepartment=&txtAct=&txtChapterNo=&txtChapterYear=&txtBillNo=&rdoComingIntoForce =&DoSearch=Search+%2F+List&viewattach=27554&blnDisplayFlg=1.

With regard to (b), the special federal representative on west coast energy infrastructure will be paid a per diem within the range of $1,200–$1,400. Support will be provided by Natural Resources Canada using existing resources.

Question No. 1286Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

With regard to the required public consultation process by Canada Post following the announcement of the possible closure of a post office location: (a) how many times has the public consultation process taken place with citizen input received and responded to by mail, email or attendance at a public meeting; and (b) on how many occasions, after public consultation, has action resulted in an outcome other than the closure of a location?

Question No. 1286Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia Manitoba

Conservative

Steven Fletcher ConservativeMinister of State (Transport)

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since the implementation of the Canadian Postal Service Charter in September 2009, the public consultation process has taken place 33 times.

With regard to (b), after public consultation, action has resulted in an outcome other than the closure of a location on zero occasions.

Canada Post regularly reviews its network of post offices to address issues such as population, housing and business development, as well as the shopping patterns of Canadians and finding ways to improve operations, enhance the customer experience, remain competitive and provide relevant postal service for all Canadians.

As part of the public consultation process, Canada Post carefully reviews all the feedback received as well as surrounding postal network coverage before making a final decision. The ultimate goal is to ensure the service Canada Post is providing is appropriate and meets its customers’ postal needs.

Question No. 1288Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

With regard to the section of the Economic Action Plan 2013 starting on page 106 entitled “Creating Jobs by Building Equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada” and the estimate quoted in this section from the February 2013 Jenkins report of $49 billion in Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) obligations that foreign prime contractors are expected to accumulate as a result of defence procurements by 2027: (a) does the government concur with the estimate of $49 billion in IRB obligations as a result of defence procurements by 2027; (b) if not, what is the government’s estimate of IRB obligations as a result of defence procurements by 2027; (c) what specific defence procurements does the government’s estimate of IRB obligations pertain to; (d) for each specific defence procurement included in the government’s estimate of IRB obligations, what is the estimated dollar value (i) of the acquisition, (ii) of operation and maintenance, (iii) of total life-cycle costs, (iv) of the expected IRB obligations; and (e) what documents, reports, or other relevant information were provided by the government in the drafting of the February 2013 Jenkins report with regard to the planned acquisitions?

Question No. 1288Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada is committed to working with Canada’s defence-related industries to better leverage military procurements in support of Canadian jobs, economic growth and the competitiveness of these industries, particularly in regard to innovation and technology development. With this objective in mind, it has received the Jenkins report, including the industrial and regional benefits, IRB, context described therein. It is currently examining the various recommendations and supporting analyses.

The Jenkins report provides an overview of potential economic opportunities related to planned major acquisitions under the Canada First defence strategy. In support of this analysis, the report estimated that $49 billion in IRB obligations will accumulate by 2027.

As indicated in annex 3 of the Jenkins report, this estimate was calculated based on two key elements: data on planned major acquisitions and current IRB obligations, which was sourced from the Department of National Defence and Industry Canada, and assumptions that were based on observed patterns from past defence acquisitions projects.

As noted in the Jenkins report, the resulting estimate of $49 billion could only be considered as a rough estimate given substantial uncertainty on the annual rate of IRB fulfillment over the planning period of 2012-2027.

The validity of the estimate, and its interpretation, must therefore be understood within that context. At this time, and subject to the context, purposes and assumptions of the Jenkins report, this estimate is deemed to be reasonable.

With regard to (b), IRB obligations are part of contractual commitments, and for projects already under contract, specific obligations are listed on the IRB website at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/h_00017.html.

As IRB obligations apply only to contract values rather than project values and will form part of any negotiated contracts, the government cannot determine IRB obligations that will apply to planned procurements. Therefore, the government cannot provide an estimate of IRB obligations that will be accumulated by 2027.

With regard to (c), as per the response to part (b), the government cannot provide an estimate of IRB obligations that will be accumulated by 2027.

With regard to (d), as per the response to part (b), the government cannot provide an estimate of IRB obligations that will be accumulated by 2027.

With regard to (e), two lists related to planned acquisitions were provided: Capital Equipment--Future Procurement--Beyond 2016, and Capital Equipment--Potential Contract Awards--Short Term, 2013-2015 estimated.

These lists were prepared by the Department of National Defence and were valid as of October 2012.

Question No. 1291Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

With regard to fossil fuels: (a) who has overall responsibility within the government for monitoring and reporting on Canada’s progress against the G-20 commitment to rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies; and (b) what steps has the government taken to ensure that support of the fossil fuel sector is not contradicting or impeding policy objectives related to the environment and sustainable development?