Stéphane Dion

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 17th, 2015]

With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since February 5, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?

[Public Safety, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister himself is talking about the next Liberal government, I want to point out that a Liberal government will rescind the unconstitutional retroactive legislation his government is trying to pass.

The Conservatives are simply trying to pass this legislation to hide their own wrongdoing when they interfered in the RCMP's business and violated the Access to Information Act.

Is it not time that the Access to Information Act covered the operations of the Prime Minister's Office and of his ministers?

[Public Safety, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, since—

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 16th, 2015]

With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Natural Resources Canada since February 5, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 16th, 2015]

With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Canadian Heritage since January 30, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?

[Public Safety, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is doing his level best to avoid the question. To sum up, in 2012, the office of the Minister of Public Safety, with the approval of the Prime Minister's Office and in violation of the Access to Information Act, put pressure on the RCMP to destroy the data from the gun registry as quickly as possible.

Will the Conservatives admit that they broke the law, that they are now trying to change the law retroactively to cover their tracks, and that the scheme they tried to hide—which the minister is still trying to hide—is both constitutionally suspect and morally indefensible?

[Infrastructure, June 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has botched the preparations for the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

We have been calling for plans for these celebrations for over a year now. Instead, the Conservatives have come up with a preposterous infrastructure program, leaving just a few weeks for submitting proposals, and excluding lots of players, including the municipalities of Quebec. This patchwork plan has been rushed and handled in a disorderly fashion.

Will they admit that they are just waiting to hand out goodies before the election?

[Main Estimates 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that accusing one's colleagues in the House of cowardice is parliamentary.

[Main Estimates 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for finally uttering the word “referendum”. We wondered whether our NDP colleagues got a memo asking them not to use that word. Maybe she got the memo and forgot.

Indeed, if people vote for the NDP, there will be a referendum. Thank you very much for saying so. Now it is a matter of determining whether the only topic during these constitutional negotiations will be the Senate, or whether, as some of her colleagues said today, they would want to talk about all sorts of other things as well. The list was long. Some in the NDP caucus are nostalgic for the Charlottetown agreement.

Does the hon. member want a discussion on the Senate only? How will she convince the Premier of Quebec to stick to a discussion on the Senate if that requires reopening the Constitution and holding a referendum?

[Main Estimates 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s comments. However, if I have understood correctly, she wants to reform the Constitution, but she does not want to hold a referendum. Is that her position?

To abolish the Senate, the Constitution must be amended, and in order to amend the Constitution, it seems to me that a referendum must be held. It is not the Constitution that requires it, but rather Canadian democratic practice. Amending the Constitution requires a referendum, which requires a majority of the votes in all the provinces, since every province has a right of veto over the abolition of the Senate.

Does she understand this, yes or no?