Murray Rankin

[Ethics, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada, employment insurance recipients are wondering when they will get the next knock on their door from a Service Canada investigator. Last week, leaked documents revealed that EI investigators can go so far as to ask mothers on maternity leave for proof of their delivery date. Anything goes in the name of fraud prevention.

However, it is a very different story when it comes to Conservative senators. The Senate operates on an honour system. That is right; the people under investigation for residency claims and improper expenses, not to mention partisan work on the taxpayer dime, are to be trusted on their word alone.

I know Conservatives love their Senate and love packing it with their cronies. It makes me wonder who will be next in line for the gravy train. After all, B.C. has a vacant seat. Maybe the Conservatives are holding it for Christy Clark. I hear she will be looking for work soon.

[Government Accountability, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, protecting the private information of Canadians should be a priority, but the Conservatives have repeatedly bungled these breaches. They have lost hard drives, lost USB keys and exposed the private information of thousands of people.

Now the federal agency charged with preventing the flow of money to organized crime might have actually allowed this information into the hands of the very criminals it is trying to stop.

Why did the government keep these serious privacy breaches secret? Where is the transparency?

[Government Accountability, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is not just about the personal information of Canadians. It is a much larger and more chronic problem that the Conservatives are unable to fix.

Last October, a computer and USB key were stolen from a car. They contained information about more than 700 people under surveillance by an officer responsible for stemming the flow of money to criminal and terrorist organizations.

Can the Conservatives explain the loss of these sensitive documents?

[Shark Finning, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, an estimated 73 million sharks are killed each year for their fins, often by a brutal practice called shark finning. Fins are removed and the bodies dumped into the ocean, causing a rapid decline in shark populations and serious impacts on our marine ecosystems.

My colleague, the NDP deputy fisheries and oceans critic, has provided remarkable leadership on this issue by introducing Bill C-380, a law that would stop the import of shark fins into Canada once and for all.

People across Canada have been working incredibly hard in support of this bill. Groups like Fin Free Victoria, a group that includes students from Glenlyon Northfolk School, and other schools in my riding, have been a real force for change, campaigning online and in the community. Let us listen to their voices. I am urging every member of the House to do the right thing and vote for the bill and stop the barbaric import of shark fins.

[Taxation, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are quick to brag, but they are letting billions more go uncollected while they stand and congratulate themselves.

As yesterday's report by the OECD makes clear, unethical tax avoidance by multinational businesses is a serious problem and it is getting worse. The U.K., the U.S. and Australia are all taking action. They have studied the issue. They have developed estimates of just how much money they are losing.

Why will the Conservatives not get serious and do the same?

[Taxation, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the OECD revealed that many multinationals were using dubious strategies to pay less than 5% in tax.

Small businesses, on the other hand, have to pay tax of up to 30%.

Several OECD countries are taking this situation seriously and have conducted studies to determine how much money is being lost through tax evasion.

Why has the Minister of National Revenue not conducted any such studies?

[The Senate, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once promised, “I will not name appointed people to the Senate”. The Prime Minister has now broken that promise 58 times, and the Conservatives defend their negligence of their duties with make-believe ads on the NDP. As a new member, I find this all very sad.

Conservatives have had 789 sitting days in government, and they have called their Senate bills for debate only 18 times over seven years. Canadians know that maintaining the status quo in the Senate is in the vested interests of two parties, parties that use taxpayer-subsidized senators to do partisan work for them. However, thankfully Canadians have the NDP, the only party that opposes the entitlements of Conservative and Liberal senators, the only party that stands firm against patronage and the only party that stands shoulder to shoulder with Canadians on accountability.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians must stand up and be counted on this. Canadians stood up when there was a desire for an Access to Information Act. A Conservative member, Mr. Ged Baldwin, devoted his career to achieving that goal. An Information Commissioner was appointed and Canadians have benefited by that statute.

They should stand up and demand no less in respect of accountability for our money. That is what is at issue and that is exactly what needs to occur. Look at value for money. The congressional budget—

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I accept in principle that there is a progression exactly as has occurred, as I pointed out, with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. She was initially housed within an agency of the government. This is a similar situation vis-à-vis the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Eventually a statute was passed, called the Privacy Act, requiring her to have the independence of which I spoke, which is a seven-year term by joint address of both Houses.

Why should members deprive ourselves of that with respect to this Parliamentary Budget Officer? I accept entirely that this would be a natural progression, as we have had in the past.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think there were two points that were made. If I understood the question, the first was about moving away from the independence of Parliament and somehow giving the opposition the opportunity to influence that officer.

With respect, that betrays a misunderstanding of the role of officers of Parliament in our system. If I may repeat, the Auditor General, Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner are all examples of officers created by statute precisely so the government of the day cannot influence them. They have a seven-year term and an appointment by the Governor in Council, only after a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is the way in which Parliament guarantees independence. The NDP is asking for the same level of independence for the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I appreciate—