Ralph Goodale

[Access to Information, May 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with the help of public funding, the Conservatives have amassed a large volume of data about individual Canadians. It is all in their central database, the Conservative information management system known as CIMS: names, addresses, phone numbers, religion, ethnicity, political activity and on it goes.

The risk of abuse is enormous. Who in the government has access to CIMS, and has that database ever been consulted when the government is responding to an access to information request, a grant application or an immigration file, yes or no?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 2nd, 2012]

Thirteen consecutive times.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is on the matter of uranium mining and nuclear safety issues.

In dealing with these matters from a government or a regulatory point of view, there are two connected dimensions. One is the administrative function of actually carrying out the regulatory oversight and the other, of course, is the legal liability if something goes wrong.

I wonder if the minister would clarify in this legislation, since there is an attempt here to devolve responsibility from the federal level to the provincial level in respect of uranium mining in particular, whether he is devolving to the provinces simply the administrative responsibility for conducting the necessary environmental reviews and examinations or whether he is devolving the legal liability issue to the provincial jurisdiction involved.

Is it purely an administrative transfer or is also carrying with it the legal liability that would previously rest at the federal level?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps an unprecedented situation that the House has never had to deal with before. If it takes some time to proceed through the two books to determine they are in fact substantively identical, could the government undertake, with whatever assistance is required from the table or the officers of the House, to report back to the House before the end of this day that in fact the two versions have been examined and they are substantively identical? There is nothing more important than the debate about budget legislation and it is absolutely fundamental that the House be assured there is no discrepancy in the material that we will discuss.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarity here, when the clerk, a few moments ago, called the title of the bill in response to your indication that we were now at orders of the day in our agenda for today, the clerk rose in response to that, as is traditional, and called Bill C-38, reading the title of it.

Could the table indicate to us which version of the bill was before the clerk when the clerk called that item for discussion today, so we know exactly what we are debating from here on forward?

[41st General Election, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government no doubt enjoyed the endorsement it got today from a U.S. Republican ex-convict who was jailed for illegal voter suppression. His fellow operatives worked with Canadian Conservatives. This ex-convict praised the Conservative robocall scam as systematic and sophisticated, all driven off the central Conservative database known as CIMS.

Has the government ever used that partisan database for government business? Has CIMS ever been checked about an access to information request, grant application or immigration matter? How far does Big Brother reach?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in his report on the Walkerton tragedy in Ontario, Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor said:

...Walkerton's drinking water system became contaminated with deadly bacteria.... Seven people died, and more than 2,300 became ill. The community was devastated.

Judge O'Connor drew a direct link to provincial budget cuts imposed by the Harris regime in Ontario.

Why would the federal government now follow that same path by gutting environmental protection and downgrading food inspection? Why is it risking another Walkerton?

[National Defence, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has been very clear. The government kept two sets of books on the F-35 issue and that duplicity was known and condoned at the highest levels.

While the government was claiming the full life cycle costs would be only $14.7 billion, it knew full well that was not true. The truth was something over $25 billion.

Who in the government made the strategic decision to not tell the truth?

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government really cannot help itself from falling into the very trap to which the hon. gentleman has just referred. It is a government that embraces the same ideology and embraces a number of ministers who were at the table when the fateful decisions were made in Ontario. At least three members on the front benches of the current government were in that government. The decisions taken at that time, in the 1990s, led to the shortchanging of the environmental system in Ontario and the water protection system in Ontario. We were all assured that these decisions would have no negative consequences whatsoever. However, the reality is that there were negative consequences. Again, that is not just the expression of a political or a partisan point of view.

This whole matter was thoroughly and completely investigated by Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor. His report is very revealing. In paragraph after paragraph, he links the consequences at Walkerton to decisions taken by the Harris government in Ontario. He says very clearly that if those decisions had been otherwise, then there would have been every likelihood that the tragedy in Walkerton could have been avoided.

The purpose of this motion today is to say let us learn that lesson from history and ensure that, in this country, that kind of thing cannot happen again.

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken a decision to close centres in Quebec City and in St. John's. The services provided by those centres cannot easily be transferred to other locations as far away as Halifax or Trenton. As well, the Quebec City location offers the absolutely vital service in the French language, which is also critical in that region of the country in particular. The member simply cannot escape the reality that his government has made the decision to cut back on search and rescue and that is not in the best interests of Canadians.