House of Commons Hansard #72 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was office.

Topics

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote.

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #99

Main Estimates, 2016-17Government Orders

10:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:25 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and address the question that I brought up a while ago about the Liberals slashing $3.7 billion from the defence budget.

As the House knows, this is reminiscent of the time the Liberals were in power in the 1990s, the decade of darkness, when they slashed considerable money from the Canadian military. The Canadian Armed Forces had a tough time during that rule of the former Liberal government under Jean Chrétien. Interestingly, that decade of darkness followed a defence policy review that was initiated in 1993 and 1994.

During that decade of darkness we saw significant money cut from the defence budget. As the parliamentary budget officer said in his fall 2015 report:

The most significant...cuts under program review occurred from 1995 to 2004.... The cumulative...expenditure over that period of time was roughly $13.4 billion below what our modelling showed was required to maintain the existing force structure.

In the budget we know we need to invest in ships. We know we need to make investments to replace our fighter aircraft. We know our army needs to replace a number of its vehicles, including trucks. All of that has now been put on hold by the Liberals until after the next election. They have kicked military investments down the road, to the tune of $3.7 billion, until after the next election.

That is going to impact 16 military projects that are currently under way. It includes things like Arctic offshore patrol vessels; $173 million is being withheld on a program that already is being cut. On the future fighter aircraft replacements for our CF-18s, the government has withheld $109 million. If the Liberals want to talk about replacing our CF-18s, they need to make sure we have money in place so we can select the proper aircraft.

The government has withheld $90 million from the Cyclone maritime helicopters. We just took possession of the first eight, and another 17 are on their way. The Liberals are withholding dollars for that. With respect to the modernization of our Halifax-class frigates and their life extension, the government has withheld $71.1 million. With respect to the integrated soldier system project, the government has withheld $39.4 million. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the $3.7 million that the Liberals have slashed from the budget. We are going to hear from the parliamentary secretary that it was re-profiled, but re-profiled is just another word for cut, and we know that any dollars that are moved down the road are apt to be sacrificed by the Liberal government.

Analyses are done by a lot of experts and military analysts. I love this quote from David Perry, who said, “This budget reminds me of that episode of Oprah where everybody in the audience got a car. Everyone got a car here except the Department of Defence...”.

The budget shrank military spending by $3.7 billion. We have seen a spending increase in almost every other department but for our men and women in uniform who are tasked with some very difficult jobs by the government. I would ask the parliamentary secretary and the Liberal government to put that money back in the budget and support our armed forces.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:25 p.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, after a while one has to wonder how many times one has to repeat oneself.

The minister was in the committee of the whole about a month ago. He answered 130 questions over the course of four hours. No matter how many times he said that this $3.7 billion was reprofiled for future use in order to try and match the procurement cycle and the fiscal cycle, no matter how many times he said the same thing, the Conservatives insisted on calling it a cut. It speaks to why the Conservatives still do not get the difference between postponing money and cutting money.

This is not a cut. This was asked for by the Minister of National Defence, because the projects that the Conservatives left behind were not ready for the spending. Apparently, the view of the Conservative Party is that we should spend the money before we actually have the project ready on which to spend the money.

The hon. member mentioned a number of projects.

Yesterday, I was in Halifax to see the Arctic/offshore patrol ships, and they are cutting steel. The midsection of one of the ships is well on its way. However, one does not write a cheque to the contractor before the terms of the contract have been fulfilled.

On the future fighter aircraft requirements, the previous minister of defence said in a Senate hearing yesterday, or last week, that actually they did not get the job done. The F-35, which was the Conservatives' choice, lacked capabilities and the costing was not right, and so they backed off and lost five years.

When we do not spend $109 million, it is because the project is not ready to have money spent on it. I do not know what could be simpler. Do we go around spending money on projects that are not ready? Is that the position of the hon. member?

On the Maritime helicopter project, same thing. We have received eight, and two have been sent back because we have to upgrade the systems. What does the member want us to do, go and spend money, and give the money to the contractor for not doing the job? Is that the process that the hon. member wishes us to engage in?

Maybe, just maybe, we should try and work at matching the fiscal cycles and the procurement cycles. Maybe if the previous Conservative government had not left behind such a mess, we would not have had to reprofile this $3.7 billion.

On the frigate modernization, the frigates are almost done; however, we are not going to write a cheque until they are done.

I still do not understand the hon. member's position: spend money before the project is complete and in effect give the contractor a bonus. This is crazy financing, but for the last 10 years, that has kind of been the way business was done around here.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:30 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to take any lessons from the Liberal Party or that member.

We know that during the decade of darkness the budget was frozen at around $10 billion for 10 years. It slipped below 1% of GDP on spending. We know that during the Liberals' tenure, there was about $13.4 billion that should have been spent that was never spent. We already see in this first budget the reprofiling, as the parliamentary secretary likes to call it, of $3.7 billion. That is more reprofiling than we did in our nine years of government.

This is really a challenge to the government. It is really a reflection on the many Canadians, especially those who serve or have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, who do not trust the government.

Case in point is that just this past week we found out that the Liberals never took the $400 billion that was budgeted for the life extension of our CF-18s and instead are creating a capability gap that should not exist. They are endangering the lives of our pilots of our CF-18s, and are not standing up for the Canadian Armed Forces and the proud men and women who serve in it.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:30 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, the previous government took lapsing to an art form. Over the Conservatives' decade of deception, they pretended to spend money on projects when in fact they did not spend money on projects. As a consequence, over the last four years the military has suffered collectively a $3.3-billion cut.

As for the F-18 program, it is a good idea to get the life extension program going. It is $450 million. It is a good idea. We like that idea, except that they only have 20 of the airplanes done. The rest are in “options analysis”. We cannot exactly argue options analysis and deal with our NATO commitments, our NORAD commitments, our expeditionary commitments, and the variety of other things that are required to defend Canada and North America.

Options analysis is not a response. The minister has rightly said we have a capability gap and it needs to be addressed. It should have been addressed five years ago, but we are going to do it.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

10:35 p.m.

NDP

Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is not every evening that we are here voting past 10 o'clock. That really puts the late into late show.

The Global Transportation Hub west of Regina is a provincial crown corporation that, after receiving $27 million in federal funding, spent a similar amount buying land from businessmen linked to the governing Saskatchewan Party for more than twice the land's publicly appraised value.

When I raised the issue in the House, the government responded in one of two ways. The President of the Treasury Board told us it is a provincial issue and the Saskatchewan government is handling it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport assured us that federal money was only used for transportation infrastructure and could not have been used for the associated land purchases.

Since we last debated this matter, several new revelations raised more questions about both of the government's explanations. The Saskatchewan Party government claimed that the land purchases were justified by a private appraisal. On May 9, CBC reported that the Global Transportation Hub is refusing to release the private appraisal because, “Disclosure of this information could be expected to harm the reputation and cause financial loss to the preparer of the appraisal”.

In terms of the documents that the Global Transportation Hub would release, it sent CBC a fee estimate of $112,000. In addition, the provincial ministry of highways sent CBC a fee estimate of $70,000 for another 500 pages of documents, well over $100 per page. These fees are obviously far beyond what would have been needed to cover the cost of preparing the documents. The provincial government is clearly using access to information fees to prevent journalists and the public from accessing the information.

Why would the federal government trust the provincial government to get to the bottom of this matter? With the Government of Saskatchewan stonewalling, the Government of Canada must conduct its own investigation to safeguard federal tax dollars.

On April 6, the Regina Leader-Post reported that the Pinkie Road interchange, completed around the Global Transportation Hub in 2013, will have to be ripped up and rebuilt to connect to the south Regina bypass, which is quickly becoming a significant boondoggle in its own right. The Pinkie Road interchange cost $43 million and was part of the transport infrastructure for which federal funds were supposed to be used. Even if we accept that no federal funds went into land purchases, that means federal funds were spent building an interchange that is now being ripped up.

The Global Transportation Hub scandal is out of control. The people of Saskatchewan and indeed all Canadians need to know what happened to our tax dollars. The federal government must investigate. It is late, but it is not too late for the Government of Canada to start being part of the solution rather than continuing to downplay the problem.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

June 14th, 2016 / 10:35 p.m.

Vancouver Quadra B.C.

Liberal

Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the issue of the global transportation hub project and our government's commitment to the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds.

This project includes the construction of transportation infrastructure in support of the global transportation hub, a premier transportation and logistics centre in Regina that involves many suppliers and retailers.

The Government of Canada has committed $27 million to the province of Saskatchewan for transportation infrastructure supporting this. Let me be unequivocal on the question of land costs associated with the project. None of the $27 million contribution was provided for the acquisition of land.

As far as the issue of land acquisition is concerned, this is clearly a provincial matter, and it is worth noting that the lieutenant governor in council in the province of Saskatchewan has requested that the provincial auditor perform a special assignment on the matter of land acquisition as it pertains to the global transportation hub project.

Although this issue falls under provincial jurisdiction, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about an underlying issue, and that is the monitoring of taxpayers' money. In fact, increased monitoring of taxpayers' money is one of the key priorities set out in the President of the Treasury Board's mandate letter. I am pleased to announce that the President of the Treasury Board has already taken measures in this regard in the supplementary estimates (C) 2015-16, which were made public on March 1.

For the first time, there is an online annex to the supplementary estimates, which provides Parliament with an early indication of the lapses expected for this fiscal year. This annex also contains a report on frozen allotments, which are funds that have been approved by Parliament but to which the Treasury Board has restricted access for a variety of reasons. This important information gives an early indication of the amount of funding that will go unused during the fiscal year.

Here is what the parliamentary budget officer had to say about the improved monitoring of Canadian taxpayers' money:

The publication of these frozen allotments a full ten months prior to the Public Accounts of Canada represents an important increase in fiscal transparency, ensuring that parliamentarians are on a less unequal footing with the Government.

In the 2016-17 supplementary estimates (A), we also introduced a reconciliation table to show how the budget 2016 spending forecast was related to the planned expenditures shown in the 2016-17 estimates to date. The parliamentary budget officer, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, as well as the Senate Committee on National Finance have all acknowledged this work as an important advance in transparency and reporting to Parliament.

Our government is committed to making yet further improvements in how we plan and report on government spending and empower parliamentarians and their scrutiny over the public purse.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

10:40 p.m.

NDP

Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, this format is called an adjournment debate. In a debate, there is some expectation that the members opposite will actually respond to the points being made. I laid out a number of new facts that had been revealed about the global transportation hub. I mentioned that the government's previous story had been that it was a provincial matter, that federal funds could not be spent on land purchases. I debunked those points. Instead, what we got from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board was just reading those same claims over again.

It is almost insulting to the House for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board to stand and tell us about a reconciliation table in the supplementary estimates (A) that has nothing to do with the global transportation hub scandal.

I raised some very important questions. The government has an opportunity to answer them, and we have not had any sort of serious response at all.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

10:40 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, this matter, raised by the member opposite, clearly falls within provincial jurisdiction. The Provincial Auditor has been asked to examine whether the Government of Saskatchewan followed appropriate procedures and received appropriate value with respect to the acquisition by the Global Transportation Hub of the land in question.

Under the gateways and border crossings fund, and consistent with all federal infrastructure transportation funding programs, costs associated with land acquisition are not eligible for federal reimbursement.

I want to congratulate the member opposite for all the work he is doing, and I hope that he will share that with his counterparts in the provincial government and the opposition in Saskatchewan. We understand that Ms. Ferguson, the Provincial Auditor, is continuing to gather all the information surrounding the deal and is aiming to have the report finished before the end of the spring sitting of the legislature. I am sure that she would welcome the member's important information.

The SenateAdjournment Proceedings

10:45 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to raise a question that I raised two months ago on April 15. I raised what I think is a very important question during question period here in the House. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to ask it again, so that I can get more information and a more substantial answer than what we get in the 35 seconds we are given for the question and answer during our daily question period.

My question has to do with the requests of the Government Representative in the Senate. Two months ago, he requested $800,000 in supplementary funding for his office's operating budget, to handle the independent senators.

I remind members that the senator in question was appointed as Government Representative in the Senate, even though the Liberals, with their supposed changes, have been calling for an independent Senate for several months or even years. There is now a government representative in the Senate. It is hard to reconcile these two facts. Many senators call themselves Senate Liberals instead of Liberal senators, or the other way around. I cannot keep it straight.

The senator was asking for $800,000 more for his budget, so that he could have not only more resources in his office, but especially more staff. He was asking for nine employees to be able to manage the government's agenda in the Senate and to oversee the independent senators. He also wanted to appoint a whip in the Senate to try to control the senators, especially those with liberal leanings, I presume, since they were all officially removed from the Liberal caucus.

This amounts to a budget of over $1 million a year for the senator in question. That senator is supposed to be independent, like all the others, if you follow what the government says. This raises an important question about whether the Senate is truly independent, since that senator was asking for additional resources to be able to manage the supposedly independent senators.

A lot has happened over the past two months. There has been some discussion in the Senate itself since that request was made by the independent senator. I am hoping to get an update from the parliamentary secretary, although he did respond to some of my questions on April 15, 2016, on the discussion that took place regarding the request by the senator who acts as the government's representative in the Senate.

What was the Senate's response and the government's response to that request for $800,000 more a year for the senator's operating budget, which would mean a total budget of $1 million to manage the supposedly independent senators?

The SenateAdjournment Proceedings

10:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the follow-through from the member, but I think it is important that we recognize that what is taking place in the Senate chamber and what happens here in the House are separate.

Much as when we have discussions and the Board of Internal Economy, for example, talks about the budget for the New Democratic Party as the third party in the House, or the official opposition, or even the government, we do not expect the Senate to ask us what we are doing with this money, why are we giving x number of dollars to the New Democratic caucus or anything of this nature. Money is allocated. The Senate and the House of Commons are independent of each other, and we need to respect that.

As a party and as a government, we have taken on the whole issue of disclosure or accountability and transparency. One only needs to look at how the current Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party, has taken on the issue of proactive disclosure. If we get a sense of what has taken place there, we will get a better sense in terms of how we want to see our affairs managed in the House. The Senate is most welcome to look in terms of how it is. We have demonstrated leadership on the issue of transparency and accountability, and hopefully the Senate will come up with a mechanism to ensure it has that high sense of accountability and transparency.

If we focus our attention on what Canadians are concerned about regarding the House of Commons, I would remind the member that he was here during the time when we were sitting on that side of the chamber, in the corner. The then leader of the Liberal Party introduced and asked for unanimous consent for what we have termed as proactive disclosure on members of Parliament. I remember it quite well. I was sitting in front of where the member is sitting now when we talked about the advantages of providing more accountability and transparency through proactive disclosure. We pushed and asked for it, but time and time again it was rejected by the New Democrats and to a certain extent by the Conservatives also.

However, it was primarily the New Democrats, so we made the decision within caucus through the leadership of the Liberal Party, today's Prime Minister, that we were prepared to go alone, and that is exactly what we did. We went alone on proactive disclosure, so members of Parliament had to convey the hospitality and travel that was taking place at taxpayers' expense. It ultimately went onto the Internet.

A number of months later, the Conservative government started to follow suit, and then I think we introduced an opposition day motion where we had that motion debated and then voted on, and finally the New Democrats came onside.

I think the Prime Minister has been very clear on the issue of accountability and transparency even before he became Prime Minister.

The SenateAdjournment Proceedings

10:50 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed that my colleague veered so far off topic. It seems that when he does not know what to say he always comes back to the famous issue of expense reporting for each party, an issue from the last Parliament.

To avoid doing the same, I would like to come back to the topic before us today. How does my colleague reconcile the Prime Minister's announcements that he would make the Senate independent with the fact that the Prime Minister appointed a government representative to the Senate who in turn appointed a government whip to the Senate and a deputy leader of the government in the Senate?

The senator in question, who was named a government representative, received $400,000 from the Senate instead of the $800,000 he was asking for, which is the response I was expecting from my colleague. He will be able to hire employees and bring in people from his inner circle and other senators.

How can my colleague reconcile the Prime Minister's statements about an independent Senate and the fact that the Senate has a government leader, a deputy leader of the government, and a government whip?

The SenateAdjournment Proceedings

10:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, all I can do is emphasize that we need to respect the fact that the Senate, as an independent body of this institution, is responsible for its budget and the issue of transparency and accountability with respect to it.

Through the House of Commons, the taxpayers have given the New Democrats, when they were the official opposition and today, literally millions of dollars to operate. On the Board of Internal Economy and in discussions among the different parties in the House, they talk at great length about what it should be and how it should be made accountable and transparent to taxpayers. A consensus is reached and it goes through.

I do not believe that the Senate calls that into question. The Senate does not ask why the NDP is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this or hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on that.

I think we have to respect the independence of both chambers.