Pierre Poilievre

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 21st, 2017]

With regard to the government's transfer of land to the Ottawa Hospital for the future site of the Civic Campus, known as the Sir John Carling Site or site No. 11: (a) what is the current status of the transfer of land to the Ottawa Hospital; (b) on what date does the government anticipate the land transfer will be complete; (c) did the Ottawa Hospital incur any costs as a result of delaying the construction by a year; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the costs, and will the government reimburse the Ottawa Hospital; (e) how many trees are there at site No. 11; (f) what buildings are currently located at site No. 11, broken down by (i) name and address, (ii) purpose and current use, (iii) whether the building will be demolished or moved to another location; (g) what will be the total cost of preparing the site for the Civic Campus to be built; (h) what will be the additional costs specific to building the Civic Campus at site No. 11, including (i) the cost of building on a sloped surface, (ii) the cost of being located near a fault line, (iii) the cost of removing or transplanting the trees referred to in (e), (iv) any other costs due to site No. 11’s unique features; (i) which organization or level of government will pay for the land preparation and additional costs noted in (g) and (h); (j) does the government have any estimates on the cost of preparing site No. 11 for a large institutional occupant and, if so, what are the details; (k) what is the market value of the land at site No. 11; (l) what will be the rental rate or sale price of site No. 11 to the Ottawa Hospital; (m) which organization or level of government will pay for the at least $11.1 million in contamination remediation, as estimated by Public Services and Procurement Canada; (n) is there any other contamination that needs to be remediated that is not captured in the $11.1 million figure; (o) if the answer to (n) is affirmative, what is the contamination and what is its expected remediation cost; (p) what design, cultural, esthetic, or architectural elements will the National Capital Commission require the Ottawa Hospital to incorporate into the hospital, and what will be the costs of these elements; (q) will the federal government cover the costs of the elements referred to in (p); (r) has the government estimated the additional costs of constructing any building or structure on site No. 11, due to the nearby fault line and, if so, what are the costs; (s) what would have been the total cost of preparing the Central Experimental Farm site directly across the street from the current Civic Campus, known as either site No. 9 or No. 10; (t) are there any known challenges associated with building on site No. 11 and, if so, what are they; and (u) does the government foresee any other factors specific to the Sir John Carling Site that would increase costs or delay construction of the new hospital and, if so, what are they?

[Infrastructure, June 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, who we are as Canadians is people who have Canadian passports, yet the finance minister said that he might consider someone who has the expertise but does not have a Canadian passport. Those were his words yesterday in a Senate committee hearing.

Therefore, Canadian tax dollars will be put at risk in the aid of foreign investors who, if they lose money on an infrastructure megaproject, will get backup from the people in this country who pay taxes and have Canadian citizenship. Can that minister guarantee that no one will be on the board of the infrastructure bank other than a Canadian citizen?

[Infrastructure, June 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we already knew that the new Liberal infrastructure bank will offer taxpayer-backed loans and loan guarantees to cover the losses of wealthy foreign investors who build megaprojects in Canada, but who will be on the bank's board? Let me quote the Minister of Finance: “I will say that it's not clear that the people on the board will necessarily be Canadians.”

That means foreign financiers could help foreign financiers access $35 billion in taxpayer-backed loans and loan guarantees here in Canada.

Who is standing up for taxpayers in this country?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, June 14th, 2017]

With regard to the number of Canadians with disabilities and disabled persons employed in the federal public service: (a) what is the percentage of public servants who are disabled versus the percentage of the overall Canadian workforce that is disabled; (b) what is the percentage of public servants who are disabled versus the percentage of private sector employees who are disabled; (c) how many disabled people have gone from being unemployed to employed after the intervention of any federally-funded employment program, in the most recent reporting year; (d) what is the average increase in wages earned by disabled people after receiving the federally-funded employment assistance programs referred to in (c); (e) how many disabled people went from unemployed to employed as a result of the funds provided through the Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities, broken down by province, in the most recent reporting year; and (f) how many disabled people went from unemployed to employed as a result of the funds provided through the Opportunities Fund, broken down by province, in the most recent reporting year?

[Taxation, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, the then-Liberal leader ran an ad of himself walking up a downward escalator, as he made promises to the middle class on taxes. After the election, we found out what this tax escalator actually meant. It meant that beer prices were going to go up, year after year, to fill government coffers. That is in addition to the tax escalator on home heating fuel, groceries, and everything else.

When will the government finally reverse the escalating cost of taxes on middle-class Canadians?

[Foreign Investment, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the due diligence necessary comes in section 25 of the act, which requires, in instances where national security matters are at stake, that there be a full and complete review, something the company in question says did not happen.

The former ambassador to China from Canada has said that this is “worrying”. The former CSIS director has said there should have been a review. Why did this minister and this government ignore all of these voices before approving this transaction?

[Foreign Investment, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is the opposite of what the company in question has said in publicly released documents. Furthermore, David Mulroney, Canada's former ambassador to China and a foreign and defence policy adviser to the Prime Minister, and Richard Fadden, the former CSIS director, have both raised the alarm bell about the approval of this transaction without appropriate national security review.

Why is it that this minister is ignoring Canada's national security experts and putting patented national security technology in the hands of those who cannot be trusted with it?

[Foreign Investment, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development said, “under the Investment Canada Act, all transactions are subject to a national security review. Therefore, we have followed the process.”

He was referring to Norsat, but that company put out a statement saying, “the Minister responsible for the Investment Canada Act...has served notice that there will be no order for review of the transaction under...the Act.”

Which is it?

[British North America Act, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, July 1st is the 150th anniversary of the British North American Act, or BNA.

The BNA is Canada's DNA. It transformed 650 years of British parliamentary democracy designed for a small island in the old world into a vast new federation in the new one. It needed no high-minded ideals about rights and freedoms because it was understood that Canadians would inherit the great freedoms of the Magna Carta: freedom from arbitrary arrest and confiscation; freedom from taxation without representation; freedom of speech, belief, and enterprise; jury trials; an elected Parliament.

As Wilfrid Laurier, our first Franco-Canadian prime minister, said, “France gave us life; Britain gave us liberty.”

Let us celebrate these ancient liberties and the prosperity and freedom they have allowed us to enjoy for over a century and a half.

[Access to Information, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last year, an employee of Shared Services Canada received an access to information request for all documents containing the words “Liberal Party”. The employee released 12 documents and deleted 398. It is an offence under section 67 of the Access to Information Act to destroy documents that have been requested under the act.

The matter has been referred to the Attorney General. I wonder if the Attorney General will recuse herself, given that it is a Liberal Party matter, and let the director of public prosecutions decide whether to prosecute the matter.