House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was funding.

Topics

Government Spending
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore
Ontario

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, this summer, I listened to the concerns of Canadians. They are concerned about their mortgages, health care and pensions and about their children's education. The concerns of this government are fighter planes, prisons and an absurd battle against the census.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is he ignoring the real concerns of Canadians? They are the ones calling the shots, not him.

Government Spending
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, this government's main priority is Canada's economy. That is one reason Canada's economy is outperforming other economies.

I toured the country as well and I saw 16,000 job-creating projects across Canada. A recent study by the OECD shows that Canada's national assets and the government's timely decisions are what minimized the financial and economic damages caused by the global recession. Canadians should be pleased about that.

Government Spending
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore
Ontario

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, he is going to have to explain the waste to Canadians, $1 billion on a G8 and G20 summit photo opportunity and $10 billion to $13 billion on prisons when crime is actually declining.

The Prime Minister is going to have to explain these priorities to Canadians. He is going to have to explain why it is that it makes sense to give corporations a $6 billion tax cut when we are in a $54 billion deficit.

How does he explain those priorities to Canadians?

Government Spending
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty explaining that this government's priority when it comes to crime is having criminals in prison, not out on the street.

I have no difficulty explaining to Canadians that when we send our men and women into dangerous military situations, we are prepared to give them the equipment they need.

I have no difficulty explaining to Canadians that when we are in the middle of a recession, we do not talk about hiking taxes on businesses or anybody else.

Government Spending
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore
Ontario

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the government is talking about jacking up payroll tax, which will cost Canadian jobs.

Everybody wants to keep Canada safe, but if the government is going to bid for $16 billion worth of aircraft, it should at least have a competitive bid that gives regional economic business to all the aerospace industries in Canada. If it is going to spend $13 billion on prisons, the government better have a better argument than the one we heard.

When will the government start listening to the real priorities of Canadians? Canadians make the law, not the Prime Minister.

Government Spending
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. It was the previous Liberal government that in 2002 participated in an international competition to select the next jet fighter. It spent $150 million-plus on that competition.

We chose that jet because we will need to replace the jets at the end of this decade and not ground our air force.

On this side of the House, when it comes to the aerospace industry of the country and the men and women in uniform, we do not play politics with these decisions.

Government Spending
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, the air force expected a competitive process to take place.

Canadians are not faced with a choice between a party that spends and another that does not. The question is what type of spending should we be doing and what are the priorities.

The Conservatives are going to borrow $6 billion a year to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest companies.

How will this help people to retire or take care of their aging parents?

Government Spending
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Whitby—Oshawa
Ontario

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the tax relief that we have provided to Canadians; it is about $3,000 per family across the country so far.

We have reduced taxes of all kinds in this country, including personal income taxes, helping, as I say, typical families get along in what has been a difficult recession.

The rest of the world looks at Canada as the way to handle an economic downturn. We are the model. We are the rising star, according to the OECD and The Economist. Canadians can be proud of the way their government has handled the recession.

Government Spending
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the legacy of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.

The big corporation tax rate in Canada has already been slashed by more than 35%. It is already the lowest in the G7, except for the U.K. It is already 10 points lower than the American rate.

When this country is deep in a Conservative deficit, why borrow an extra $6 billion every year to make those already competitive tax rates even more generous? Corporate tax cuts on borrowed money: what good is that for families, pensions, caregivers, or learning?

Government Spending
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Whitby—Oshawa
Ontario

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, there are two clearly different approaches. One is to reduce taxes, help Canadians and help their families. We have done that for more than four years now.

The other approach is to raise taxes, which is what the official opposition plans to do. As the Leader of the Opposition said last year, “Federal taxes must go up; we will have to raise taxes”. That is the position of the Leader of the Opposition: tax and spend.

Our position is to give Canadian families a break.

Firearms Registry
Oral Questions

September 20th, 2010 / 2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, the Conservatives announced that, in this new session, law and order would once again be their priority. This morning, however, the President of the Treasury Board reiterated that he would continue to fight for the abolition of the firearms registry, no matter the outcome of Wednesday's vote. Yet, everyone agrees that the registry is a vital tool. That is what the RCMP, police chiefs and women's groups are saying.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that his stubborn attempt to abolish the firearms registry is driven only by ideology?

Firearms Registry
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, our position is clear. We support gun control, but the kind that targets criminals, not aboriginal peoples, duck hunters and farmers. Such a registry is obviously useless and ineffective. I even noticed that the Montreal Gazette said the same thing.

Firearms Registry
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

In short, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government wants to put more people in jail and have more guns in circulation. What a fine attitude. It is paradoxical, to say the least.

Will the Prime Minister admit that one of the objectives of his anti-gun registry campaign is to please his military supporters, and too bad for safety?

Firearms Registry
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, our party supports effective and useful gun control. We do not support a registry that targets Canada's rural areas, duck hunters and farmers. We must have laws that target criminals and criminal activities.

Firearms Registry
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government's approach to dismantling the firearms registry has been inspired by policies proposed by the NRA in the United States. However, if there is one model not to follow, it would be that of the Americans. Homicide rates in the United States are three times higher than those in Canada and five times higher than in Quebec.

Instead of playing the NRA's game and adopting lax American-style gun control practices, why is the government not abandoning its plans to dismantle the firearms registry?