Gerry Byrne

[Pensions, February 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let the record be clear. Cutting existing pension benefits from Canadian seniors is not new for the government.

On May 17, 2010, Conservatives changed the rules and cut current OAS recipients of guaranteed income supplement benefits if they made an emergency withdrawal from their own registered savings. This party, the Liberal Party, forced them to back down, but now they are back to their old dirty tricks.

Will the Prime Minister personally commit that absolutely no policy or legislative changes are in the works to reduce OAS or GIS benefits? Could I have a clear answer, please?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the advice and points of view of the hon. member of the government who is proposing this particular piece of legislation.

I want to ask a very specific question. While the member has lauded certain advantages that could be accrued from this investment initiative, are there some downsides?

Since the hon. member has indicated that he has a deep and intimate knowledge of the program his government is proposing, I would ask him if there would be any financial consequence in terms of eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement for an individual who contributes and then draws down his or her pension? Will contributions to this particular investment vehicle when paid out in the form of a pension later in life during a person's pensionable senior years be considered income? Normally, income results in a consequence in the means test for someone's eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement.

Will there be that means test? Will drawing down from that particular pension affect a person's GIS eligibility? If so, does the hon. member actually believe there is an incentive then to contribute?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

Since January 1, 2010, for each Minister, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary, how many times did he or she travel by government-owned or leased aircraft inside or outside of Canada, and for each trip: (a) what was the departure point and date; (b) what was the arrival point and date; (c) what type of aircraft was used; (d) who owned each aircraft; (d) who accompanied the Minister; (e) what was the purpose of the trip; (f) what is the source of funds and budget that was used to pay for each trip; (g) what was the total cost; and (h) what was the menu for in-flight meals made available to the Minister or other travelers?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to each Canadian flag that has flown above the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill since January 1, 2010: (a) who received each flag; (b) for what purpose or occasion did the recipient indicate the flag was being requested or would be used; (c) for requests in which the intended recipient was different then the requestor, who was the requestor’s intended recipient; (d) the number of flags distributed each day throughout the period covered within this request; and (e) the average cost per unit to the government for each flag?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to the operations and management of Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI) and consultants’ reports presented to MAI or Transport Canada by Fleetway Incorporated and by Oceanic Consulting Corporation since January 1, 2005, what are the details of these reports with respect to the consultants’ reviews, analysis, findings and recommendations on MAI’s ferry replacement options?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) under the Old Age Security program and changes in the government’s policies dealing with Registered Retirement Income Funds for the purposes of exercising a GIS, GIS Allowance and GIS Allowance for the Survivor option since May, 2010: (a) how many requests for an option were received between May 17 and December 31, 2010, and how many requests for an option were received in 2011; (b) how many requests were rejected in each quarter of the calendar year as a result of the revised policy circulated on May 17, 2010; (c) how many of those requests which had been rejected in each quarter were subsequently reviewed and overturned in the course of each calendar year; (d) how many requests for an option are currently being reviewed for consideration; and (e) what is the average processing time for each application?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for St. John's East.

Having been a member of the bar for quite some time, I think this House can appreciate that the member offers views and positions that would be of value to us all in determining the overall merit and considerations of the bill.

The hon. member mentioned that the genesis of the bill was in a particular case. I believe it is was the Lucky Moose Food Mart case in Toronto. The shopkeeper basically felt that there was a requirement on his part to defend his property; he apprehended a suspected thief and was subsequently charged with assault.

The case went through the system and was resolved. I believe that either the charges were dropped or he was found not guilty. The hon. member may be able to refresh our recollections of it.

The question is as follows: does this particular legislation add any new remedies, any new penalties or any new circumstances that assist in those kinds of matters?

The case in point is that the citizen's arrest occurred after the theft of property. Does this legislation actually provide any specific means to deal with the specific case that was the genesis of this particular legislation?

[Natural Resources, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as of today the Conservatives are in formal default of their promise of a Muskrat Falls loan guarantee.

After over a year of analysis, a financial equivalent is being floated instead. Offering a financial equivalent is a refusal to assume any future risk for the project. It is not a true loan guarantee and is not what was promised. In contrast, a true loan guarantee would not cost the federal treasury a nickel as long as the project was technically and financially and economically viable.

Will a loan guarantee be offered, yes or no?

[Privilege, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recognize the member for Mount Royal for closing summation comments.

I want to be very clear that the actions that occurred in the electoral district of Mount Royal are irrefutable. They are vile, corrupt and anti-democratic, and they happened. They happened in a way that was very consistent with previous actions of the Conservative Party of Canada using House resources to conduct a negative and false message targeted at a particular electoral district and a particular member of the House.

A professional polling firm, a corporate entity does not undertake this activity because of its own political philosophy or own personal actions. It does so for remuneration. Someone paid a company to conduct a false poll, a push poll, in the guise of a public relations survey, to convey a false message to the electors within the Mount Royal district.

There has been past activity which outlines that House resources were used to conduct that activity. That is irrefutable. What is also irrefutable is that this particular survey could just as easily have been conducted through one of two means. It could have been conducted using the research budgets of the Conservative Party of Canada, or through a subsidy from taxpayers.

The bottom line is that it is not acceptable to any member that we simply whistle past the graveyard and ignore this issue. Mr. Speaker, there are precedents and rulings that if you were simply to find the basis for an investigation to find out the truth, not to whistle past the graveyard, given the fact that there is past activity which supports the notion that House resources were used to do this type of acticity, that House resources could now be used to conduct this type of vile activity. To not refer this to committee, to not find a prima facie case of privilege in my opinion would be an offence to the House. We simply cannot walk past the graveyard on this. It is incumbent upon all of us to protect the rights of individual members.

I call on you, Mr. Speaker, to do the right thing and allow this matter to be properly vetted. Do not let even the perception or the reality of House resources, of the people's resources, be used for a false, corrupt message, which betrays the true character and integrity of a member of this House. It would be unacceptable.

[Infrastructure, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, without a plan and without rules, documents reveal that the government has been spending millions on border infrastructure projects in Quebec, Ontario and the Atlantic inappropriately.

In Atlantic Canada, the government has been promising such a strategy, the Atlantic gateway strategy, since 2007. It was not until March 2011 that the government finalized and posted these rules and only after a quarter of a billion dollars had already been spent.

Transport Canada's departmental performance report reveals what the minister will not, that the gate to the Atlantic gateway is now closed. The funds are all gone.

How does the minister explain this mismanagement--