David McGuinty

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the issue to the question of costs and budgeting in this budget. The member is a former RCMP officer and I commend him for his 20 years of service in a difficult profession.

I want to talk to him about crime bills, and I am sure he has some good insight in this regard. For the first time in commonwealth history, a government has been found in contempt for not providing costs with respect to crime bills.

The government is very fond of mandatory minimums. We heard another private member's bill today on mandatory minimums. I think the member knows the connection between mental health, substance abuse, poverty and crime. California, Texas and other states that have been driving the mandatory minimum agenda are now backing away rapidly from it. In the case of California, mandatory minimums have often been described as one of the most expensive costs that the state has to bear and they are really pulling the state down. Mandatory minimums do not work.

With this explosion of mandatory minimum offences now being brought to bear in the Criminal Code, could he help Canadians understand how much money in this budget has been earmarked for transfer to the provinces to assist them with what will likely and inevitably be a very large increase in the number of incarcerated Canadians?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to switch gears for a second and ask the member a question about something that is very foundational for our future, which is science and technology, but particularly science.

I just want to remind viewers and Canadians who are watching what has gone on in past budgets and what is going on in this budget. Here is what has been eliminated by the Conservative government in the last several years.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is gone. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which funds research, is barely surviving. The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences has been eliminated. It has cut 700 positions at Environment Canada. The partnership with the United Nations Global Environment Monitoring System has been eliminated. The desertification convention research, which we are facing here in Canada and for which we need research, has been eliminated. The office of the science advisor has been eliminated. The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory has been eliminated. The Experimental Lakes Area was eliminated until it was saved by the Ontario government.

Now we learn this week that between 500 and 600 jobs in our agricultural research stations across the country are being phased out. This is at a time when the government says that it is going to reorient 30% of our international aid to focus on agricultural opportunities in developing countries. It just does not square.

Can the member help us try to understand why a government would compromise a nation-state's future by undermining all of its foundational science?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to raise a few points and ask my colleague from Don Valley West if he would take them back to the business round table he struck in his riding some time ago and ask the people there how they might react.

I am not sure if he has informed his business round table that the government has spent just over $600 million in advertising in the last six years. It spent $29 million to produce and put up 9,000 billboards. It has even begun advertising, which has never been seen in Canadian history, for programs that do not exist, training programs that have not even been negotiated with the provinces.

How would the member justify this to his business round table members? Could he actually look a small-business owner in the eye and justify this kind of expenditure, when we know, for example, that tonight, during playoff hockey, the government is spending just under $100,000 for every 30-second advertisement? That would buy 14 insulin pumps for needy Canadians with diabetes or would produce 40 summer jobs for unemployed students. Can the member explain to the owners of small and medium-sized businesses in his riding how this has come to be?

[Petitions, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to table a petition signed by hundreds of local residents who are urging the government to establish a department of peace, headed by a minister of peace as a senior cabinet position, and that this department should reinvigorate Canada's role as a global peace builder. I am pleased to table this petition and I look forward to the government's response.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I must say that I did not learn anything new, because that same speech has been repeated over and over by NDP members, much like Conservative Party members repeat their speeches.

I have a simple question. In the last five hours, we have spent about $250,000 in additional costs to hold this debate in the House tonight instead of continuing to study other bills. That kind of money could buy 30 insulin pumps for people with diabetes.

Could the member tell the Canadians watching at home how the two parties debating this issue justify spending this money?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up, if I could, on the question put earlier by my colleague from York West.

By all accounts, there are many legislators in this House who have a lot of experience. We all know that this kind of late-night sitting is costing the taxpayers of Canada somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000 an hour. It is very important for Canadians, I think, to know that.

I also think it is important to pick up on a comment made by my colleague from the NDP moments ago, raising important questions about resourcing the witness protection program and noting that the $60,000 an hour it is costing for this debate could go toward resourcing the program.

I am not sure why the government is debating the bill. All three parties agree. It passed through the committee without amendment. We are trying to understand why it is we are charging the Canadian taxpayer $50,000 to $60,000 an hour. Why do we not move on and actually pass this bill and get on to an issue of debate, so we do not have people reading speeches for TV productions?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 29th, 2013]

With respect to advertising paid for by the government, broken down by fiscal year, for each fiscal year from fiscal year beginning April 1, 2006 up to and including the first half of fiscal year 2012: (a) how much was spent for each type of advertising, including, but not limited to (i) television, specifying the stations, (ii) radio, specifying the stations, (iii) print, i.e. newspapers and magazines, specifying the names of the publications, (iv) the internet, specifying the names of the websites, (v) billboards, specifying the total amount of billboards and the locations of the billboards, broken down by electoral district, (vi) bus shelters, specifying the locations, (vii) advertising in all other publically-accessible places; (b) for each individual purchase of advertising, who signed the contracts; (c) for every ad, who was involved in producing it; and (d) for every ad, what were the production costs, both direct and indirect, broken down per advertisement?

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a few comments my colleague has made about the question of choices a government makes.

In my riding of Ottawa South, there are 3,250 small businesses. They could have one, five or 50 employees, but they are the backbone of our local economy and the Canadian economy.

I want to ask the member about the choice the government is making about advertising. One of the things I hear from small business owners is how offended they are when they see hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising on TV about some kind of economic action plan, yet their small business taxes are increasing.

Could the member comment on that in terms juxtaposing the government's priorities, self-promotion versus helping to strengthen small businesses?

[Ethics, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy, when did the Prime Minister find out about the cheque? To whom was it made payable? On which account was the cheque drawn? What was the date of the cheque, and will the government produce a copy of it?

I ask all of this because the Prime Minister stated that Nigel Wright was acting in “his capacity of chief of staff”, and that cheque therefore belongs to the Government of Canada, and Canadians have a right to see it. Will the Conservatives step up and produce it?

[Ethics, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Senate reports are supposed to be independent. The executive is not allowed, by law, to interfere, but both Senators Tkachuk and Stewart Olsen confirmed that they discussed the whole Duffy audit both with Nigel Wright and the Prime Minister directly.

When did those discussions take place? Who in the Prime Minister's Office saw a copy of the draft Senate report? Has all of this information been provided to the RCMP, and when are we going to get an open, transparent, legitimate airing of the facts?