Rob Nicholson

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2019]

With regard to Canada’s spending on defence as a share of GDP since January 1, 2016: (a) how much of defence spending is devoted to equipment spending by both dollar amount and percentage of total defence spending; (b) what is the current twenty year projection for defence spending as a percentage of GDP; (c) what is the current twenty year projection for defence equipment spending?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2019]

With regard to testimony from Julie Charon on February 19, 2019, at the Senate Finance Committee where she stated that the Department of National Defence had just recosted all of its projects: (a) by project, which had an increase in forecasted costs, which had a decrease in forecasted costs, and which saw no change in forecasted costs; (b) of the projects listed in (a) which had their budgets changed; (c) what is the impact of these changes in costing on (i) the contingency included in the annual projection for capital spending, (ii) the overall cost of these projects, (iii) project scope to stay within budget if the budget was not increased?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2019]

With regard to project funding for Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 fiscal years (to date of this filing): (a) which projects in SSE that were projected to spend money in those years did not; (b) of the projects listed in (a) what is the operational impact of these projects not spending money on schedule; (c) how much money will be reprofiled into Budget 2019 as a result of this underspending?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 6th, 2019]

With regard to the integrity regime since January 1, 2016: how many times did SNC-Lavalin or affiliates of SNC-Lavalin request advanced determinations of ineligibility, broken down by (i) date of request for advanced determination, (ii) date of decision on the request from Public Services and Procurement Canada?

[Privilege, April 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I do not look forward to anything like this, but the hon. member for Victoria has made an excellent point as to what has taken place.

This is a process that was put together by the existing government in which it wanted a number of members of Parliament to participate in this process to make recommendations with respect to the Supreme Court justice. I remember that the government wanted to be careful about this. My office was told that we were going to have to swear that we were going to keep it secret. My staff pointed out that I had top security clearance as a former foreign minister, in other positions and as a member of the Privy Council. However, when I heard this, I said that it was fine and I would swear to keep quiet anything we did and any contents of the meeting.

The meeting was very small, involving several members of Parliament. The member for Victoria, the then justice minister, who we made recommendations to, and I were the only people who knew this. It was something that was given to the Prime Minister's Office. Therefore, what we hear, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said on Friday, and the Prime Minister and others, is that, no, neither the Prime Minister nor anyone in his office leaked this. Okay. Then the justice minister said that no, nothing came from his department. Then who was it? Let us face it. There were just a couple of us involved with this.

This is why I have found it very concerning. It seems to me that it weakens people's trust in this institution. We ask people to swear that they will keep something quiet, secret, and not divulge this information, and then when we see something like this, we want to see something done.

A number of us asked the justice minister last week, in I think four questions in a row, to please investigate this. Would you not want to investigate this, Mr. Speaker? If you believed that the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office or the Department of Justice had anything to do with this leak, would you not want this investigated? I think most people looking at this would say yes, it only makes sense to do that, and it is the right thing to do.

I am asking, Mr. Speaker, that you have a look at this, because this certainly impacts all of us who want to participate and be part of this process here. That, I believe, has been compromised by this. It should be changed, and it should be put to rest by a proper investigation.

[Justice, April 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why this is always so difficult for the Liberals here.

Last week, the Manitoba Bar Association issued a very scathing statement regarding the confidentiality of the judicial selection process by the compromising of Chief Justice Joyal's recommendation. Now this serious breach of confidentiality under the Liberals has violated that justice's privacy and undermined Canadians' confidence in our judicial process.

Why is it so difficult for him to do the right thing, contact the Privacy Commissioner and get an investigation on this? That is what should be done. It should not be that difficult.

[Carbon Pricing, February 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, amid a mounting list of failures, the Prime Minister's 2019 carbon tax is just the beginning of what he wants Canadians to pay. Experts agree that it will not be effective and will only lead to economic hardship for Canadians.

The Prime Minister's carbon tax will add 11¢ to the cost of every litre of gas and hundreds more for home heating. Despite false assurances that it will not add up to much, independent analysis estimates the cost to be up to $100 more per month. This is yet another area where the Prime Minister needs to come clean with Canadians. Canadians should not be punished with an ineffective tax for working, playing and living. Worse yet, the Liberal carbon tax will go even higher.

The Prime Minister does not worry about money or deficits, but that is not the case for most Canadians. Hundreds of dollars in added costs per year matters to most of us. In October, we have a clear choice. The Conservatives will ensure that Canadians get ahead instead of falling behind.

[Justice, February 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to bring attention to the questions raised by #LavScam and whether the rule of law in Canada has been compromised.

The office of the Attorney General must remain autonomous and maintain its independence from political pressure. It is in fact the cornerstone of our democracy. The member for Vancouver Granville was very succinct on this point in her most recent public letter. One part that particularly resonated with me is the following:

It is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from even the perception of political interference and uphold the highest levels of public confidence.

That is why it is imperative that the former attorney general and Mr. Butts be allowed to speak at the justice committee. Canadians must have the assurance that the rule of law in Canada has been upheld and in no way has been brokered or suppressed. It is fundamental and must be applied equally to all persons. As Martin Luther King stated, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, for the Liberals it is never a problem spending money. If a report comes out that they overpaid for the Trans Mountain pipeline by a billion dollars, so what? What is a billion dollars? It is just small change for members of the Liberal Party. That is their problem.

All of us here on this side were part of a government that was very careful, very deliberate with respect to government spending. We were always being careful. This is exactly the opposite of what we are getting here today, and this is why the country needs a change of government.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you on that one.

That said, we want the Prime Minister to put it down in writing for just the reasons that I have articulated over the years. The Liberals have a record going back 50 years of saying one thing during an election and doing something completely different afterwards.

I remember how emotional the Liberals were when they were against the free trade agreement. Do members remember that one, and how determined they were?

Then they were passing out erasers in my riding, saying they were going to erase the GST. We know exactly what happened on that.

It was actually the Conservative government that reduced the GST and combined it with provincial taxes to form an HST. We are the ones people can count on to do the things that we promised to do. The Liberals have a long, long record of doing the exact opposite whenever they take power in this country.