Scott Andrews

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 16th, 2012]

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, more specifically, Small Craft Harbours (SCH): (a) how many properties under the ownership of SCH have been divested each year from 2006-2011 inclusively, (i) in what community and province were each of these properties located, (ii) what was the assessed value of each of these properties at the time of divestiture, (iii) what financial transactions took place (i.e., amounts), as part of the Divestiture of Non-Core Harbours program, (iv) who received financial compensation and/or paid financial compensation for the divested properties?

[Points of Order, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your clarification. I would like to inform the House that given your ruling, the Liberals will be scrumming after all in camera meetings to lift the veil of secrecy the Conservatives continue to drape over committees of this Parliament.

[Points of Order, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in hopes that you can shed some light on an issue arising out of committee proceedings today.

At this morning's meeting of Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the committee went in camera to deal with an amendment and a motion that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister had moved during the public portion of today's meeting. My understanding of the rules is that all in camera meeting proceedings are deemed secret and that only decisions of the committee are printed in those minutes.

My party has sought advice from a committee clerk in the past and we have been clearly told that decisions taken by a committee during in camera sessions can only be publicly disclosed once the clerk of the committee has published the minutes. This is the explicit advice that we have received from a senior clerk of the most senior committee of the House of Commons.

I was alarmed today when I read a tweet from Kady O'Malley in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister disclosed a decision of the committee prior to the minutes being published. The tweet appeared at 11:53 a.m., while the minutes were not posted until 1:10 p.m. today.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, given the clear advice that we have received from the senior clerk on the most senior committee of the House of Commons, if you could clarify the rules of in camera committee proceedings and if there is a breach, I would ask you to address it.

The Conservative party likes to use in camera to block Canadians from seeing what their elected representatives are doing. Conservatives use this tactic to kill studies and motions that are embarrassing to them. The use of in camera meetings by the Conservatives is a stain on our democracy. In typical fashion, the Conservatives are trying to have it both ways. They cannot on one hand use in camera to block Canadians from seeing what their elected representatives are doing, while at the same time breaking in camera rules when they see fit.

This is typical behaviour from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and shows how he lacks credibility. He accuses members of making unnamed robocalls, yet he has done worse. He sent out calls that were somewhat to impersonate the local MPP to cynically try to convince voters to vote for him.

I look forward to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will recap question period for the minister responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Questions on intergovernmental affairs files: no answers. Questions on search and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador: no answers. Questions on standing up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: no answers.

I say to the regional minister from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I see him at the end of the House acknowledging my question, here is an easy one: What exactly do you do here?

[Petitions, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition containing hundreds of names of constituents from my riding on the east coast of Newfoundland and the Avalon Peninsula.

The petitioners call upon the Prime Minister and the government to maintain the age for receiving OAS benefits. Many seniors look forward to this benefit as they reach age 65. Pushing it to age 67 would only affect the lowest income seniors and deprive them of $30,000 in benefits over that two-year period. Also, low-income Canadians are more heavily reliant on OAS and the GIS.

The petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada not to touch old age security.

[Petitions, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present a petition on old age security. It is signed by hundreds of residents in my riding calling upon the government not to change the age of old age security.

There are seniors out there who are very scared and concerned about this possible change. This change would most affect those who are earning less money and who need the guaranteed income supplement. It would not help the finances of the country by changing this at this time. I call on the government not to go ahead with this.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refused to give a straight answer on the question of whether his government was changing DFO's fleet separation and owner-operator policies. If the minister goes ahead with these changes to this long-standing policy, it will mean the end of the inshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and across all of Atlantic Canada. Large processing companies and corporations will take over the fishery and traditional independent fish harvesters will be a thing of the past.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries give us a straight answer? Is the government going to change the owner-operator policy and fleet separation policy, yes or no?

[Petitions, February 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House today and present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Admirals Beach, O'Donnells and St. Joseph's.

The petitioners would like to see high-speed Internet in their community. It is essential for rural areas of Canada and, in particular, in my area of St. Mary's Bay. They do not have access to high-speed Internet and they feel this is a necessity and a way of life that we now need to provide to them.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to take the necessary actions to have communities linked up to the high-speed Internet.

[February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, obviously a firm has been engaged, but the parliamentary secretary cannot tell us the name of the firm. She has great talking points there, but we are a little light on details.

I will quote the premier of Newfoundland who said, on January 31:

The Government of Canada has also reviewed the Muskrat Falls project and has concluded the proposal is in the national interest, worthy of warranting national support...

Therefore, we are not sure if it is a loan guarantee or equivalent financial support. She went on to say:

—in effect making a project that was already deemed cost-effective even more so. Work is progressing well in finalizing the guarantee.

However, we do not seem to have any details on where the guarantee is or at what stage it is. I asked a question about the eight weeks and the parliamentary secretary could not answer that.

I have another question. Have the capital markets been engaged as per the terms of the agreement, yes or no?

[February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the House this evening to ask a few questions regarding the Muskrat Falls project in Newfoundland and Labrador. The timing of this question is quite interesting because today the public utility board in Newfoundland started some public hearings into the Muskrat Falls deal.

There are many people back home asking questions about this deal, such as what the true value of it is and if it will benefit Newfoundland and Labrador. Many people are skeptical of the deal. Today in the public utilities board meeting there were a lot of comments around the financing of the deal, whether it would go over budget and by how much or whether it would it go under budget.

A lot of this surrounds the question I asked in the House regarding the loan guarantee from the federal government. We need to look at the timeline. The loan guarantee was promised prior to the election. The memorandum of understanding was signed in the summer. Some deadlines were put in place. August 31 was one deadline and another was November 30. All these seem to have come and gone and we have received no clarity.

I want to quote from the memorandum of agreement that was signed between the province and the federal government. It states:

The Parties agree that time shall be of the essence in this agreement and will be bound by this agreement including the following timelines, unless otherwise extended by mutual agreement: on or before August 31, 2011 -- announcement of the terms of this agreement; on or before November 30, 2011 or 8 weeks following access by the Government of Canada to the projects’ data room...

I will get back to that in a second, because that is where my question is going to be. It continues

—and detailed analyses and representations by credit rating agencies--agreement on term sheet for engagement with capital markets; and on or before financial close--completion of formal agreements for provision of the loan guarantee.

My first question for the parliamentary secretary is on this eight weeks following access to the Government of Canada's projects' data room. Has the Government of Canada had access to the projects' data room? If so, when? One of the things in the agreement states that it needs to be reported back eight weeks after that has happened.

As well, who is the financial adviser on this file? Again, the memorandum of agreement states:

—the federal government is retaining financial advisors to complete due diligence analysis. The purpose of due diligence is to assist the Government of Canada in the implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement. The Request for Proposal for financial advisors is posted on the Government Electronic Tendering Service (MERX) and will close on September 6, 2011.

The government has tendered for financial analysts. The Minister of Natural Resources has confirmed that a financial adviser is in place, but has not stated when these details would be finalized.

Therefore, my other question to the parliamentary secretary is this. Who is the financial adviser on this file and what is the timeline when he or she will come back and report to the federal government on the particular outlines of this agreement?

These are a couple of specific questions regarding Muskrat Falls that people are wondering, and the timing of the question this evening is very prudent.