David McGuinty

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 21st, 2011]

With regard to responses to questions on the Order Paper, prepared by the ministries but sent to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or the Privy Council Office (PCO) for review in 2009 and 2010: (a) what responses to questions on the Order Paper were reviewed by PMO or PCO staff; (b) what responses were amended or sent back to the ministries with suggestions for amendment; and (c) what responses to questions on the Order Paper were completely rejected by PCO or PMO with instructions to the ministry or ministries to rewrite or submit a non-response to the House?

[Business of the House, March 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, could the government House leader inform us of the government's plans for the business of the House for the remainder of this week, as well as the week of March 21.

Mr. Speaker, given the extremely serious nature of your rulings yesterday, could the House leader confirm that the government will fully comply with the rulings? Will he pledge that the Conservative members on the Procedure and House Affairs Committee will try not to disrupt or filibuster the work of the committee? Very specifically, will he tell us when we can expect to receive all of the documents that the House has ordered the government to turn over?

In the case of the motion relating to the costs on F-35 fighter jets, corporate tax cuts and the government's law and order agenda, it is important for Canadians to know and to remember that the original request for this information and these financial details was made on November 17, many months ago. We are now in a situation where there is simply no justification for any further delays.

[Business of the House, March 3rd, 2011]

I will leave it with you, Mr. Speaker, and with my colleague across the floor.

I would ask the House leader what the business of the House is for the remainder of this week. There were some changes this week in terms of opposition days granted to the NDP. These were negotiations that were ongoing I understand between the government and the NDP.

I would also like to ask what the business is for next week?

We have been asking repeatedly, and Canadians want to know, where two other government bills are, Bill S-10 and Bill C-49.

[Business of the House, March 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask the question, I would like to first pick up on the unanimous request put by my colleague from the NDP.

A very troubling matter was raised during question period today and I would like to give the government House leader an opportunity to address it. Perhaps he could come back to the House and explain how it is possible that a minister of the Crown would facilitate and permit the sending out of fundraising letters seeking $200,000 of financial commitments for Conservative branding.

[Business of the House, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government House leader if he might walk us through the balance of business in the House this week and, of course, what he is contemplating for next week.

In particular, many Canadians are asking where the government stands with two bills that it has been heralding now for months, Bill S-10, which we have yet to see debated in any sense in this House of Commons or at committee, and Bill C-49, which the government continues to talk about and the immigration minister and the Prime Minister keep referring to but we have yet to see.

We are anxious to improve the situation on both the law and order fronts for Canadians but also on immigration and refugee reform.

[Business of the House, February 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the government House leader in anticipation of the business for the remainder of this week and, of course, next week.

I wonder if he might, in his response to the question, answer specifically where the government is with respect to two bills: Bill S-10, which my colleague, the justice critic for the official opposition, referred to earlier during question period as the “dumb on crime” bill; and Bill C-49, which the Prime Minister and his cabinet continue to herald as a solution for our refugee and immigration challenges, particularly on our borders. We have not seen that particular bill since it was discussed some months ago.

[Youth Suicide, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, today would have been Daron Richardson's 15th birthday.

In the wake of the tragedy of losing their beautiful daughter, her courageous parents, Stephanie and Luke Richardson, have launched the first annual Do It For Daron Purple Pledge Day in support of the Royal Ottawa Foundation for Mental Health.

They have drawn deeply on their love for Daron and their profound concern for mental health issues in all of our teenage kids, and rightly so.

Ten to twenty per cent of Canadian youth are affected by a mental illness or disorder. A staggering 3.2 million kids between the ages of 12 and 19 are at risk for developing depression. Suicide is among the leading causes of death of 15 to 24 year olds, second only to accidents, taking an astonishing 4,000 lives each and every year.

As the father of four, I am asking my colleagues in the House of Commons, many of whom are wearing purple today, to join me in honouring Daron's memory by helping to raise awareness about youth mental health.

[Business of the House, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader what the business will be for the remainder of this week and, of course, next week. I also would like him to address, if he could, two specifics in anticipation of next week.

First, what are the allotted days for opposition day motions, particularly opposition day motions broken down by party, based on the agreement that we negotiated with all parties prior to Christmas?

Second, I would like to ask specifically, which will be the second or third time that I have asked the minister in the House and several times privately, when the government plans to bring Bill C-49, which was given first reading on October 21, 2010, some three and a half months ago, to the floor of the House. It is important, because the Prime Minister, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, the House leader and many ministers in that cabinet spend a lot of time talking to Canadians about what they consider to be the merits of this bill but they simply will not bring it to the floor of the House of Commons. The official opposition is ready to deal with that bill and to have it both in the House and in committee.

Perhaps the minister could explain to the House where Bill C-49 is.

[Points of Order, February 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is in respect to comments made by the Minister of Finance, emanating from an answer he gave during question period to our colleague, the member for Wascana.

I want to seek unanimous consent in the House to table several documents related to the minister's previous time in the Ontario legislature, which he addressed himself in answers this afternoon. I want to clarify for the record a few things and then seek the consent of the House.

In fact, on June 17, 2002, a vote passed on division at Queen's Park in the legislative assembly, with photographs in all major dailies showing the Minister of Finance being in the assembly at the important time. On June 26, 2002, time allocation was in fact passed on the budget and the Minister of Finance was recorded as being there, despite his claims to the contrary this afternoon.

I would like to now get the approval of the House to table a few documents, including headlines where the Minister of Finance is shown in photographs with the former minister of finance for Ontario, Janet Ecker, where she is revelling in applause from the Minister of Finance, who was side by side with her as that budget passed.

I would also like to table the Ontario Hansard report from June 17, 2002, recording the vote. I would ask permission to table the Ontario Hansard of June 26, 2002 containing the listing of members who were present and who affirmed, by expressing “aye”, their support for the measures in that budget, including the Minister of Finance.

Finally, I would like to table several comments by the media reporting on the then minister of finance's views on that budget in Queen's Park when in fact corporate tax cuts were delayed, including two quotes.

One is from the Globe and Mail, which states, “Enterprise Minister [at the time] sat smiling beside Ms. Ecker on Monday as she disowned many of the tax-cut promises contained in his budget last year”.

In the other quote from the Globe and Mail the Minister of Finance defended the corporate tax freeze again during the 2003 provincial election. He said, “The delay was created by a financial downturn related to the 'extraordinary circumstances' of the terrorist attacks in the United States—

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2011]

With respect to Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests as of December 10, 2010: (a) what are all access to information requests addressed to the government that have not met the ATIP timeframe and that are currently awaiting a response; (b) what are the reasons for the government being unable to comply with each of the requests identified in part (a); (c) on what date was each request identified in part (a) received by the government; (d) what is the estimation of when each request identified in part (a) can be expected to be met; (e) what is the name and contact information of the individual who made each of the requests identified in part (a) (if this is impossible for privacy reasons, then identify each individual with an individual-specific number); and (f) for each individual identified in (e), are they known to be affiliated with (i) a political party, (ii) an NGO, (iii) a media organization?