Steven Blaney

[Justice, April 11th, 2019]

That is not so, Mr. Speaker.

We now know the Liberals tried to prevent the Davie shipyard from getting the contract for the Asterix. When that scandal broke, they backed down. We also know that no explanation was given for why Vice-Admiral Norman was fired in January 2017. The government has paid no legal fees since then.

How can the Minister of National Defence justify not covering the legal fees of a respectable officer even as taxpayers pick up the tab for the Prime Minister's shenanigans?

[Justice, April 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is a double standard. The legal fees incurred by the Prime Minister and his office for trying to interfere in a criminal case will be covered, while a senior officer, a vice-admiral who wanted to protect the Royal Canadian Navy and, by extension, jobs in Quebec, gets dragged through the mud by the Prime Minister. The vice-admiral's reputation has been tarnished and he will not get reimbursed one cent by the government for his defence.

Why the double standard? Why not stand up for justice and those who stand up for it?

[Interim Estimates, March 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I see that a number of members did the right thing. They did not vote if they did not hear the motion.

I would like to give my francophone colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell an opportunity to withdraw his vote, out of respect for his constituents. He unfortunately seems to have voted even though he was not here when the motion was read out.

[Justice, March 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal scandal has certainly put Canada back in the international limelight. Four resignations in less than three months is a record. The British newspaper The Guardian said that the Liberal scandal is like watching a unicorn get run over. The former attorney general says this is a very serious matter and that some questions remain unanswered.

Why muzzle the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights? What is the Prime Minister hiding?

Why try to keep the truth under wraps? Why such arrogance when freedom is at stake?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2019]

With regard to the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) at-sea refueling support requirements and oil replenishment needs not currently supplied by MV Asterix: (a) how many non-Canadian entities or vessels are being used to fulfil the replenishment needs; (b) what is the breakdown of the number of non-Canadian vessels by country of origin; (c) what are the (i) costs to date, (ii) projected future costs of the services provided by non-Canadian vessels; (d) in what countries, ports, and territorial waters do these replenishment services take place; and (e) what is the projected time period for which non-Canadian vessels will continue to provide the RCN with its replenishment needs?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2019]

With regard to the position previously taken by the Minister of Justice that piracy “may be beneficial to one’s emotional and social development, and thus justified, ethical and virtuous”: (a) does the Minister of Canadian Heritage agree with the previous position of the Minister of Justice and, if not, why has the Minister not denounced the position; (b) what is the current position of the Minister of Justice regarding piracy; and (c) is the Department of Justice concerned that the previous writings of the current Minister of Justice may undermine any current and future prosecutions related to piracy?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 18th, 2019]

With regard to foreign vessels engaged in coasting trade in Canadian waters: (a) how many exemptions did the Minister of Transport issue in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, (iii) 2018; and (b) in the case of each vessel, what was (i) its country of registration, (ii) its tonnage?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 18th, 2019]

With regard to the government’s decision to rename the Champlain Bridge to the Samuel De Champlain Bridge: (a) how much did the government spend on its consultations and the process to pick the new name; and (b) what is the detailed breakdown of the expenses in (a) by line item?

[National Defence Act, February 22nd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his rigorous analysis of an important bill. He does exceptional work in the House and I am very proud that he is standing up in particular for the interests of Bagotville military personnel, especially those in the air force.

I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question.

Could this bill have been better drafted so as to better serve Quebeckers in the military?

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and her work. In my speech, I mentioned the importance of putting a human face on the Employment Insurance system. My colleague has made significant efforts in this area, and we fully endorse them.

We need tax measures adapted to the changing Canadian population. That is what our government did. My colleague may remember that the Conservative government made tax changes to stop the subsidies for oil sands development. It also implemented positive measures to encourage industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, we did so while effectively cutting taxes for the middle class and balancing the budget.

Next October, Canadians will have an opportunity to return to smart tax measures with a Conservative government led by our leader.