May 17th
- MP
libMay 17, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Toronto CentreMr. Speaker, the reality is that those new definitions are simply not in any information we have been given. They are in the musings of cabinet ministers opposite and we have had another philosophical discourse from the minister speaking on behalf of the government.
We still have this contradiction with respect to the old age security and guaranteed income supplement. The government members tell us there is a crisis and that it is going to be resolved in 2023, but they will not tell us how much they think they would be saving.
How can the government say there is a fiscal crisis with respect to the affordability of the plan and yet not have any idea as to what the return to the taxpayers is going to be?
- MP
ndpMay 17, 2012 11:20 am | Quebec, OutremontMr. Speaker, it is no wonder the Conservatives received the Canadian award for most secretive government in history a couple of weeks ago from our journalists, but this is not run-of-the-mill Conservative secrecy. It is vindictive, it is vicious and it is illegal. One government department went so far as to check the home address of Globe and Mail reporter Daniel Leblanc.
Why? Why is the public service being enlisted to run a witch hunt on journalists?
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 11:15 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, laws on government secrecy exists to protect real national secrets, not embarrassments to the Prime Minister. The article in the Globe and Mail said the government “...is refusing to open up the $16-billion purchase of 65 new fighter jets to a competition because of the potential negative reaction in the United States...”.
The Prime Minister might take issue with the truth, but it does not justify calling the cops, it does not justify intimidating reporters and it certainly does not justify attacking freedom of the press.
Is this the point we have reached in this country—having police investigate journalists who are only doing their jobs?
May 16th
- MPndpMay 16, 2012 11:40 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, members of Parliament have a responsibility to debate, study and analyze. To that end, we need answers, not the type of response we just heard.
What exactly are they afraid of? Why are they refusing to answer?
The Prime Minister's guide for ministers if very clear: “As a minister...you must answer all questions pertaining to your areas of responsibility...” We have just seen the opposite.
Here is a clear question that the Minister of the Environment continues to refuse to answer. Will the Prime Minister finally disclose which Environment Canada programs will be eliminated by the budget? We want the names of the programs.
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 11:40 am | Alberta, Calgary SouthwestMr. Speaker, this government does not want to burden the Canadian economy. We are trying to make progress on the environment at the same time as we stimulate economic growth.
I think the leader of the NDP and ourselves are really on different wavelengths here. We are not interested in identifying which industries we are going to call diseases and shut down. Our government is interested in the growth of the Canadian economy while making environmental—
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:30 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, as has been noted by all experts, old age security and guaranteed income supplement are by far the largest programs of the Government of Canada. These will continue to grow over time. In fact, they are projected to grow three times over the next generation, three times what they are today.
This is a program without a fund. That is why we are taking measures beginning in 2023 to make sure Canadians are prepared and that we have a system that is sustainable for future generations.
- MPlibMay 16, 2012 11:30 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, the government has stated that there is an affordability issue with respect to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. That was what the Prime Minister said in Davos, and that has been said by the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Finance. The odd thing is that the government, neither the minister, nor the Prime Minister, can tell us how much money is going to be saved by the changes they are introducing in 2023.
If they cannot tell us how much money they are going to save, could they please explain to us why there is a crisis of affordability? It is a very simple question.
- MPndpMay 16, 2012 11:25 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Minister of Public Safety stood by a Conservative decision to roll out the red carpet for a Chinese company called Huawei.
Huawei will be allowed to buy up key telecommunications assets in Canada, despite the fact that the United States and Australia have blocked it from major telecom projects due to serious national security concerns.
The United States and Australia are two of our closest allies. They still see the risk. Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore their warnings?
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:25 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is speaking of some contractual relationships between some Canadian companies and foreign companies. The particular concerns that he raised in fact have been addressed. Those concerns have been examined and those concerns have been addressed in our mind.
I would remind the leader of the NDP that we do not take dictates on security from the United States.
- MPlibMay 16, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is absolutely wrong and is refusing to acknowledge what is really going on.
The Conservatives have made it clear to unemployed workers that their rights will no longer be protected by laws passed by Parliament, but by regulations approved and passed by the Prime Minister himself.
What are those regulations and those laws? Canada is not a dictatorship. It is a democratic country in which workers have the right to know which law will protect them.
- MPndpMay 16, 2012 11:20 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there are no reductions to old age security in this budget. This pamphlet on the budget, which was one of the supplementary documents the government tabled in this House with the budget, gives a detailed explanation of the cuts the Conservatives want to make to Canadians' retirement income. Of course, this document is missing one vital piece of information—a number, which is also not found in the budget itself.
Exactly how much money do the Conservatives plan to take directly from pensioners?
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:20 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, once again, there are no cuts to people's pensions. Canadian pensioners know that. On the contrary, next year, they will have the option of delaying their participation in the program, thereby increasing their benefits.
This government has been very clear: we are ensuring the long-term sustainability of this program for future generations.
May 15th
- MPlibMay 15, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that neither I nor the members in this corner of the House have ever had the sense that either the government or the Prime Minister listen to us. They do not give me that impression.
His answer is completely different from the frank and candid answer we got from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Yesterday, the minister revealed what is really going on with this Parliament and this government: they are smothering everything they hear from people they do not agree with.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 11:25 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, I can listen to the leader of the Liberal Party, but I still have to use common sense.
When deciding what changes to make in this budget, the government looked at research sources within departments and outside departments. Obviously, we do not want research duplication. That is what the government is doing in its economic action plan.
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 11:20 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, their attitude is reprehensible and nasty. What they are really doing is attacking people with disabilities. People with disabilities are not asking for anything more than to take their place in society. This government should be helping these people, rather than calling them lazy. That is what this government is doing.
Why attack our seniors? Seniors should not be a source of cheap labour because this government wants to force them to delay their retirement so it can steal $12,000 from each of them.
Why are the Conservatives attacking seniors and people with a disability instead of helping them?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 11:20 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has changed very positively in the course of my lifetime has been our realization that people we call disabled are able to do a whole range of functions that every Canadian can do. An example of that is right before all of us, right here in the Minister of State for Transport, who is able to be Minister of State for Transport.
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 11:15 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, until now the Conservatives had refused to come clean on how much they plan to cut from old age security. Finally yesterday, when asked whether the Conservative cuts would take about $10 billion out of the pockets of Canadian seniors, the Minister of Finance said, “I've heard that number. I've heard $12 billion also. Something in that area.” I guess it is not just the Minister of Defence who has arithmetic problems.
Would the Prime Minister refresh the memory of his Minister of Finance and table the full cost of his old age security cuts in the House?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 11:15 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to refresh the memory of the leader of the NDP. Of course, in this budget there are no reductions to old age security. Seniors of Canada know that.
We are looking at adjustments to the age of eligibility that will not begin to take effect until the year 2023. In the meantime, seniors will have the option of delaying receiving these benefits and receiving them at a higher rate if they choose to do so.
May 14th
- MPlibMay 14, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the minister's response that the government is closing down and silencing institutions with which it does not agree. The Conservatives are telling all these national boards and organizations that they do not like independence, information and criticism and that that is why they are closing them. This is why people think that this government looks more and more like a dictatorship. That is the problem.
- MPndpMay 14, 2012 11:20 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are abusing their executive power, particularly as they go about eviscerating environmental protection.
The Conservatives are eliminating the independent environmental assessment process, dismantling the agencies that do that work, and preventing individuals from participating in and being represented at public hearings. The worst part is that even if the Conservatives do not get support for what they decide in advance, they can ignore assessments and approve projects regardless of the risks.
How can the Conservatives justify such offensive action when there is no need for it? Why are they hiding it in a budget implementation bill?
- MPndpMay 14, 2012 11:15 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill is over 400 pages long and it puts more and more power in the hands of the executive and Conservative ministers.
More and more decisions will be made by the executive behind closed doors, without any parliamentary oversight. One man spoke out against such an abuse of power in the past:
We will protect the democratic prerogatives of this House...against the excesses of executive powers...The people express their wishes as much through the opposition as through the government.
Why are the Conservatives now renouncing a principle that was once expressed by the Prime Minister himself?
May 10th
- MPconMay 10, 2012 11:45 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the president-elect of France, François Hollande, on Sunday evening to congratulate him and tell him that the hon. Lawrence Cannon would be the next Canadian ambassador to France and that Mr. Cannon has my full confidence and the experience needed to represent our country.
This shows the importance we place on our relationship with France, a country with which we have economic, cultural, linguistic and historic ties. Clearly, we would like to thank the former ambassador, Marc Lortie, for his service.
- MPlibMay 10, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, yes, I did read the bill, and it is here and here and here. This bill gives extraordinary powers to cabinet.
Everyone knows what cabinet means. It is the power held by one man, in this case, the Prime Minister. This is a huge change that gives even more power to the Prime Minister and none to Parliament or to Canadians. That is the problem.
Why is the Prime Minister doing this?
- MPconMay 10, 2012 11:25 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party should actually read the sections of the bill in question. They cannot be adequately categorized in that way whatsoever.
What is being done in the area of environmental assessment is to ensure we still have thorough environmental assessments but that there will be a defined timeline within which judgments and advice have to be rendered. That time can be up to two years, which is plenty of time. That is the kind of certainty that investors are looking for.
- MPndpMay 10, 2012 11:20 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative cuts are putting the security of Canadians at risk, plainly and simply.
I have another example. Just days after the closure of the maritime search and rescue centre in St. John's, we find out that medical emergency calls made from waters off Newfoundland and Labrador are now being routed to a call centre in Italy. Callers report being connected to doctors who cannot even understand them. That is a net result of Conservative cuts. Public safety is being put at risk.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House how long the lives of people will be put in danger before the government corrects the situation?
- MPlibMay 10, 2012 11:20 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, on that particular score, surely the Prime Minister is not denying the fact that Mr. Rideout, in calling about the health of his father, was routed to a doctor in Rome. The doctor in Rome did not know where the call was coming from and wanted to know what kind of fishing was going on. Mr. Rideout was so frustrated he hung up the phone, came back and phoned the CBC about the rerouting that had taken place.
Why would the Prime Minister stand in his place and give the House false information with respect to the situation of the--
- MPconMay 10, 2012 11:20 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, because the NDP decided to oppose and try to block the budget a few minutes after it was tabled, that party has not bothered to look into these matters.
In the case the hon. member mentions, there is no change to procedure here. The first response to these calls has always been to medical facilities in Halifax. There is backup in case those calls are backed up. That has been the case and that will continue to be the case.
- MPndpMay 10, 2012 11:15 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are slashing public services, gutting environmental protections and dismantling their own accountability act, all this thrown into a budget bill in the hope that Canadians will not notice. How can the Prime Minister justify trying to slip these policies past Canadians without a proper debate?
When he was sitting in opposition, the Prime Minister felt quite differently about that sort of thing. He said, “I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles”.
What happened to those principles?
- MPconMay 10, 2012 11:15 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, the government's economic action plan is indeed comprehensive. We are operating in a world with a very fragile global economy. The government is determined to take a range of actions necessary to create jobs and growth and to secure our prosperity in the long term.
We have set aside a record amount of time for debate. I would urge the NDP to actually debate the legislation rather than just trying to obstruct and delay.
May 9th
- MPlibMay 09, 2012 7:35 pm | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Chair, last year, the Prime Minister of Canada said:
This is the option that was selected some time ago, because it is the only option available. ... This is the only fighter available that serves the purposes that our air force needs.
Is that or is it not still the position of the Government of Canada?
- MPlibMay 09, 2012 7:30 pm | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Chair, I will try again. The Auditor General clearly found that a decision was made in July 2010, a decision that was made out of sequence, without adequate facts, without adequate justification and without the documentation required to make such a decision.
What I am trying to find out is whether the government is in fact conducting a competition with respect to the replacement or is the government simply reviewing its own decision with respect to the F-35. Does the government stand by the Prime Minister's comments a year ago when he said, “This is the option that was selected some time ago, because it is the only option available?” Is the F-35 the only option available and being taken seriously by the government, yes or no?
- MPlibMay 09, 2012 7:25 pm | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Chair, the critical issue is the government decided to proceed without a competition. The Auditor General found clearly and categorically that the government proceeded without a competition, and that things were done out of sequence and were done without the proper authorization.
The Prime Minister stated last year, and this quote is from the March 11, 2011 issue of the Globe and Mail:
This is the option that was selected some time ago, because it is the only option available. This is the only fighter available that serves the purposes that our air force needs.
Is that still the position of the Government of Canada, yes or no?
- MPlibMay 09, 2012 7:20 pm | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Chair, I would say to the government members opposite that it might be easier if they had a copy of the Auditor General's report because I am going to be asking very direct questions based on paragraphs from the Auditor General's report.
On page 21, at paragraph 2.50, the Auditor General says:
As described in the following paragraphs, we observed that in the lead-up to this announcement, required documents were prepared and key steps were taken out of sequence. Key decisions were made without required approvals or supporting documentation.
Does the minister support that conclusion of the Auditor General?
- MPlibMay 09, 2012 11:30 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is ignoring this by not clearly indicating that the remarks made by the Minister of the Environment are simply unacceptable.
He has a Conservative-dominated committee in the Senate that is going after particular environmental charities. It is not going after the Fraser Institute. It is not going after the Manning Institute. It is not mentioning the fact that the Fraser Institute got $0.5 million from the Koch brothers in the United States. It is not doing that.
However, it is going after environmental charities which are attempting to protect the lifeblood of Canadians. That is what it is doing.
- MPconMay 09, 2012 11:30 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, in terms of our own giving and our own political preferences, it is our absolute right to do so.
What is incumbent upon all charities is that they respect the laws regarding political activities. Those laws are clear. We will make them even clearer. The Canada Revenue Agency has an excellent record of the non-partisan enforcement of these rules.
- MPlibMay 09, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of the Environment referred to the “money laundering” activities of several registered charities in the country.
Given the fact that the Canada Revenue Agency is supposed to be politically neutral, is not supposed to be a political arm of the Conservative Party of Canada or of the Government of Canada and is supposed to be objective and confidential, does the Prime Minister not realize that the kinds of comments made by his minister in fact point to a political campaign against a number of registered charities which the government simply does not like? Does he not understand the dangers—
- MPconMay 09, 2012 11:25 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency is independent of the government and is tasked with enforcing the law. The laws with respect to registered charities are clear. In fact, we are taking steps to ensure they are crystal clear. However, they are clear that there are limits to political activities for donations that people give on a tax receivable basis for charitable causes.
- MPndpMay 09, 2012 11:20 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is giving us another history lesson. Actually, we voted for the accountability act.
Back in the days of the sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister had great respect for the Auditor General. The Prime Minister campaigned on expanding the Auditor General's powers and increasing the Auditor General's budget,. However, buried in the 421 pages of his budget bill, the Prime Minister is taking away the power of the Auditor General to monitor 12 separate agencies.
What kind of budget act slashes oversight of the budget? Is that why he does not want anybody paying too close attention to his budget bill?
- MPconMay 09, 2012 11:20 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, the statement by the leader of the NDP is completely false. The fact of the matter is that as part of the government's economic action plan to encourage jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, we are streamlining the environment assessment process. It will be extremely thorough. It will be for major projects up to two years. We know that the NDP opposes these kinds of projects completely. However, we have to have a process that is environmentally thorough but that ultimately does allow projects to be approved under some circumstances.
May 8th
- MPndpMay 08, 2012 11:20 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the environment tells us that the Conservatives have no real plan to protect Canada's health and environment. He tells us that it is too late for the government to meet even its inadequate climate change targets for 2020.
Already future generations are going to be responsible for $7.7 billion in environmental liabilities, and that is only the contaminated sites we know about, not the ones that continue to be created today. Why are the Conservatives compounding their environmental failures with a budget bill that would further gut environmental protection?
- MPconMay 08, 2012 11:20 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, this government has made record investments in environmental remediation and cleaning up sites that were not properly assessed in the past. This government is ensuring that we have thorough environmental assessments going forward.
We differ with the NDP in that we think that while environmental assessments have to be thorough, there also has to be a time limit. There has to be the ability to actually have economic development in this country. The no-development party does not favour that, but we do and Canadians do.
- MPndpMay 08, 2012 11:15 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the NDP made a common-sense proposal that would allow the budget implementation bill to be studied properly. This would allow members of Parliament to do the jobs we were all elected to do. It would respect the number one role of this institution, to hold the government accountable on behalf of Canadians.
Will the government do the right thing and agree to split the bill?
- MPconMay 08, 2012 11:15 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, the economy is the national interest of Canadians.
This government received a mandate to make jobs and growth and long-term prosperity its major emphasis. The economic action plan was put before this Parliament in March and approved in principle in April. A first bill is now before Parliament and will be debated in a record amount of time. I would encourage all members of Parliament to focus on the real economic priorities of Canadians.
May 7th
- MPlibMay 07, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, very empty words at a time when those people have served the country so well. Their time of deepest need for those services is when they come back to Canada.
I would like to ask the minister a final supplementary question with respect to the visit to Canada of the UN special rapporteur on the right to food. I wonder if the minister could explain the embarrassing situation. We are the first industrialized country that the UN rapporteur has decided to visit because of complaints that he has received with respect to food services in Canada, with respect to nutritious food and with respect to running water.
How does the minister feel about that particular situation?
- MPlibMay 07, 2012 11:20 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, in establishing its priorities the government always makes a point of saying that it wants to do the best for men and women in uniform.
Given that today is Mental Health Day, given that this week the report of the Mental Health Commission of Canada is being released, and given that 20 serving soldiers committed suicide last year and cuts are being made in services for mental health by the Department of National Defence, how does the government justify that at this particular time?
May 3rd
- MPconMay 03, 2012 11:25 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, in response to the Auditor General's report, the government has announced that it will take a number of steps before proceeding. We intend to examine all these facts and options before continuing with the process. We have been clear about that.
- MPconMay 03, 2012 11:20 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, the one who has it wrong is actually the Liberal Party. This is not what the deputy minister said. I would encourage the members to actually fully read his testimony. The thing he has quoted is a very specific item that is not a general comment.
The government has accepted the report of the Auditor General and is acting on those recommendations.
- MPconMay 03, 2012 11:15 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Mr. Speaker, as I think has been made very clear, $15 billion has been the estimate of the acquisition and maintenance costs. In any case, the government has been very clear and the facts have been on the record for years that the government has not signed a contract and has not bought any aircraft. None of that is even remotely planned until the current aircraft reach the end of their useful life in the later part of this decade.
May 2nd
- MPlibMay 02, 2012 11:30 am | Ontario, Toronto Centre
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us quite simply whether the government accepts the Auditor General's findings.
Who, in the government, will take responsibility for the fact that the Canadian public and Parliament were misled by their own government? It is the Prime Minister's government that is refusing to take any responsibility whatsoever for the problems that have been so clearly described by the Auditor General.
Who, across the way, is truly responsible?
- MPconMay 02, 2012 11:30 am | Alberta, Calgary Southwest
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General made some very clear findings with regard to this matter. He took submissions on this matter from the various departments involved. The Auditor General issued his report. The government and the departments in question have accepted the conclusions of that report. We have been very clear, in some detail, how we are moving forward on that.
We will ensure that the Canadian air force has the best equipment available and that our aviation industry continues to participate in the development of world-class aircraft.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 11 Next »
