Rob Nicholson

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 5th, 2018]

With regard to military procurement: (a) does the Prime Minister agree with the position put forward by officials at Public Service and Procurement Canada that “Canada may, but will have no obligation, to require that the top-ranked bidder demonstrate any features, functionality and capabilities described in this bid solicitation or in its bid”; (b) of bidders who were awarded contracts since November 4, 2015, how many were unable to demonstrate or fulfill any features, functionality or capabilities described in their bid; and (c) what are the details of all incidents referred to in (b), including (i) bidder, (ii) contract amount, (iii) description of goods or services rendered, (iv) list of specific bid claims which bidder was unable to fulfill, (v) date bid was awarded, (vi) amount recovered by government, as a result of failure to fulfill, (vii) has the bidder been banned from future bidding as a result of making false claims on future bids?

[Carbon Pricing, October 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, this week the Prime Minister and his government announced that they will force provinces that are not onside with their carbon tax to pay for it anyway. This will affect families from across the nation. The Prime Minister expects Canadians to believe that sunny ways will prevail. In reality, this tax-and-grab scheme will make everyday living more expensive for Canadians commuting to work, feeding their families, or filling their gas tanks.

How in the world can the government expect Canadians to get excited about a $12.50 per month return, when in reality, they know they will be paying much more. Sunny ways, hardly; it is more like gloomy days.

When will the government start working for Canadians rather than expecting Canadians to work for it?

[Foreign Affairs, October 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we found out that the Russian military has engaged in a number of serious cyber-attacks. Not surprisingly, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were targeted. These attacks were designed by the Russians to disrupt investigations into Russia's numerous violations of international law, in particular, the nerve attack in the United Kingdom.

I would like to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs what specific action is she going to take in response to these Russian attacks on Canada, and will she introduce new sanctions and expel members of the Russian diplomatic corps from Canada?

[Canadian Forces, September 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today as the newly appointed shadow minister for public services and procurement. As such, it provides me the opportunity to address some of the serious procurement issues currently facing the amazing men and women of our Armed Forces.

For example, the Liberals are replacing our 40-year-old fighter jets with 40-year-old ones from Australia. It brings back memories of the leaky subs they bought from Britain. They have also insulted our forces by asking them to return their smelly old sleeping bags so they can be redistributed to new recruits, in an effort to compensate for their costly military spending. Spending millions on a fleet of lemons is an extension of a summer of failure by the Liberals. We simply cannot trust them to do the right thing and equip our troops with the necessary resources.

I call upon the Liberals to show a little respect for the members of our Canadian Armed Forces beginning with the purchase of new sleeping bags. How about that for a start?

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his assessment and analysis of this. As he pointed out, he is bringing a sort of lay perspective to this. I appreciate the fact that he has been consulting with his constituents, as I know he does during the summer. In fact, that is one of the good things about the bill. The Liberals are putting it in at the end of June, just as they did with a bill last year, and by the time the summer was over, so many people found out that they were going to remove protection for religious services and members of the clergy that they had to rethink this. That is what I am thinking is going to happen here.

When the hon. gentleman is talking to his constituents this summer, I am sure he will bring this up and get some feedback from them. For instance, do they like the idea that people convicted of human trafficking will not get a consecutive sentence if they trafficked 25 human beings as opposed to one human being? If his constituents agree with that, it would be interesting to hear. I would also be interested to hear if some of his constituents say that it is more serious if people traffic 25 human beings, so they should get a consecutive sentence. I would also be interested to know whether his constituents think, after they get a chance to analyze this over the summer, that if people are participants in and members of a terrorist organization they should be eligible for the lowest possible criminal offence.

The Liberals are saying that everyone loves this and that all these different changes to the Criminal Code are just wonderful, but I think this is one of the good things about the summer. We get a chance to hear from our constituents, and I know the hon. member will do that.

[Justice, May 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Liberals gave us notice that they are attempting to ram through a 300-page omnibus criminal justice bill. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he thinks it is a good idea that committing crimes as a gang member, kidnapping a 12-year-old, or forcing marriage for children under the age of 16 are crimes that could be punishable by a mere fine. When does the Prime Minister think that a fine could be appropriate for such serious crimes?

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the justice minister. The obvious one is why are they doing this? There were no delays when this bill was called up a couple of days ago. We in the official opposition put up three speakers because there is a considerable amount of interest in this legislation. There was no attempt to disrupt or hold this up. I am very interested to hear what the minister has to say.

This bill was introduced the day before Good Friday, just as Parliament was rising. It has over 300 pages of changes to the Criminal Code. I agree with the Minister of Justice that there are some good things in it, but that being said, there are huge changes being made to the Criminal Code, particularly with respect to the question of sentencing. The minister says she is not reducing sentencing, but if they give the option to the courts to turn these into summary conviction offences, they will in effect be doing exactly that.

I would like to know this as well. Is the minister already starting to hear from groups who are worried about impaired driving and the possibility of it being a summary conviction offence? They make that possible for somebody convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm. Then there are the changes relating to the kidnapping of children under the age of 14 and participation in criminal organizations. This is huge. Therefore, I am hoping that the minister will answer what the rationale is behind that. I will suggest to the minister that she separate some of those elements from the bill, and then get on with some of the other things that all of us could agree on?

[Justice, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the government that this week is Victims and Survivors of Crime Week.

I know that the Liberals have made it clear that victims have not been a priority of theirs in the last two and a half years, and of course the latest example is Bill C-75, which would reduce the penalties for many serious crimes, including the abduction of a child under 14 years of age, forced marriage, participation in terrorist groups and criminal organizations, and many others.

Is there any hope that the government can change its philosophy before the next election and start putting victims first? Can it do that?

[Criminal Code, May 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would say that the hon. member should have a look at the legislation tabled here before Parliament.

Let us just ask those organizations, MADD and others we have heard from over the years, which are quite concerned about impaired driving, how they like this Liberal idea that someone could get a summary conviction, the lightest possible sentence, if he or she is convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm. How about that? Is there anybody in the Liberal Party who is saying that this is going to be a bit of a problem for the Liberals?

I will be neutral on it, to the extent that we should hear from the witnesses and see if they happen to agree with the Conservative Party. I bet they will.

[Criminal Code, May 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right.

When the Liberals introduced that bill, they did not even mention the fact that they were removing section 176 from the Criminal Code, the section that protects people at a religious service. It also makes it a crime to threaten or attack a member of the clergy. I had to ask the question, just before Canada Day, “Why are they doing this? What is their problem with this?”

I noticed that the Liberals did back off at that time, but I see that it has been added to the list and can be reduced. If someone wants to attack or threaten a member of clergy, there is the possibility of a summary conviction. The Liberals did not get rid of it, but I guess they said, “If we cannot get rid of it, at least let us reduce the possibility of a penalty on this.”

I do not get it. I said to them, and I thought it was good advice, to forget about section 176. It is a good section of the Criminal Code, and it should stay there. However, I guess the Liberals now have two pieces of legislation and are somewhat obsessed with this.